The U.S. Government shutdown...

[nursebenjamin]

If there is a government shutdown in the United States, who's to blame: the Republications, Democrats, or do both parties share equal blame? The question for debate is who should be blamed and why.

I blame the Democrats for a failure to stand up for their core principles, and the complete failure to articulate a loud and clear message.

However, the Republicans more responsible for the budget impasse. Senate Democrats have agreed to cut 33 billion dollars for the budget; the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party wants 40 billion. The difference is only 7 billion dollars, which is about how much we spend in Iraq each day. The Republicans don’t really care about a balanced budget, as evidence on their insistence late last year to extend the Bush-era tax cut to the wealthy. It’s estimated that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy will cost the Government $700 billion dollars over the next ten years.

The real issue at hand is ideology, not the budget. The Republicans are trying to create a crisis for the purpose of manipulating the public to turn against popular programs that are pet projects of the Democratic Party. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, community heath centers, EPA, Department of Education, etc… The Republican leadership also seek to slow the economic recovery, which they feel will hurt Obama at the polls in 2012.

[nygreenguy]

"Death panels?" NOW who is repeating the political rhetoric?

But I"ll make you a deal; I have asked several times now. Have you read the bill? When you have, so that we are both on the same page and have the same background, I will be more than happy to show you the problematic parts.

Actually, his reading of the bill is irrelevant. You made a claim, and per board rules, you must now provide evidence for it.

[WinePusher]

I know you are repeating the rhetoric of Palin, but that was long proved to be false a long long time ago.

Prove it.. show where there are these said 'death panels' in context.

"Death panels?" NOW who is repeating the political rhetoric?

But I"ll make you a deal; I have asked several times now. Have you read the bill? When you have, so that we are both on the same page and have the same background, I will be more than happy to show you the problematic parts.

I wouldn't my time, dianaiad. Prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it ^100,000, it's the only card they have in their deck. Notice what Goat said, he said it was proven false a long long time ago, yet he can't actually type of a post in his own words showing how it was proven false. All he can do is ask you to prove it rather than telling you where you are wrong. I'd love to see his debate tactics invoked in a university or public setting .

[nursebenjamin]

Prove it.. show where there are these said 'death panels' in context.

"Death panels?" NOW who is repeating the political rhetoric?

But I"ll make you a deal; I have asked several times now. Have you read the bill? When you have, so that we are both on the same page and have the same background, I will be more than happy to show you the problematic parts.

I wouldn't my time, dianaiad. Prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it ^100,000, it's the only card they have in their deck. Notice what Goat said, he said it was proven false a long long time ago, yet he can't actually type of a post in his own words showing how it was proven false. All he can do is ask you to prove it rather than telling you where you are wrong. I'd love to see his debate tactics invoked in a university or public setting .

Winepusher, if someone makes a claim, then they must support that claim, per forum rule #5: “Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.� It is hard to have an intelligent debate when everyone is throwing around unsupported claims.

dianaiad claims that she read the entire act and that there are provisions in the act for rationing care to the elderly. Here is the entire text of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If the rationing of care for the elderly is in the act, then it really should not be too hard for dianaiad to provide a page and section number.

If course dianaiad cannot do this because the rationing of care is not in the act. PolitiFact.com called "death panels" the "Lie of the Year";[1] FactCheck.org referred to it as one of their "whoppers" of 2009.[2] Palin (who coined the phrase) even said the term should not be taken literally, but rather was meant to get people thinking about the issue as when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire".[3]

I present the fact that people continue to repeat such an outrageous lie as evidence that Republicans have manipulated the public for the purpose of turning them against popular programs. People have been misled to the point where they can’t distinguish between fact and fiction.

[Tuff]

Both parties are to blame, and as a whole I blame the Legislative Branch far more than I do the Executive Branch for this mess. I'd be highly curious to know what the Founders would make of the current situation, notably John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, and how they would fix this mess.

[micatala]

I know you are repeating the rhetoric of Palin, but that was long proved to be false a long long time ago.

Prove it.. show where there are these said 'death panels' in context.

"Death panels?" NOW who is repeating the political rhetoric?

But I"ll make you a deal; I have asked several times now. Have you read the bill? When you have, so that we are both on the same page and have the same background, I will be more than happy to show you the problematic parts.

Moderator Clarification


Just as a clarification. One can pose questions to other members. However, if one has made a claim (e.g. the affordable health care act contains rationing that could reasonably lead to people dieing), then one is obliged to provide support for that claim, regardless of whether anyone asks for evidence, but especially if the claim is challenged.

Posing questions to those making such challenges and having those questions go unanswered does not relieve one of the burden of providing evidence.


Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[WinePusher]

If there is a government shutdown in the United States, who's to blame: the Republications, Democrats, or do both parties share equal blame? The question for debate is who should be blamed and why.

I really don't care who should be blamed, I also don't see the government shutdown as a totally bad thing. I welcome the idea of a government shutdown as long as it only has minor effects on government employees, schools, and other aspects of the public. There's a reason why Congress has such a low approval rating, and they should be punished for not listening to the desires of the American electorate.

I blame the Democrats for a failure to stand up for their core principles, and the complete failure to articulate a loud and clear message.

What principles would those be?

However, the Republicans more responsible for the budget impasse. Senate Democrats have agreed to cut 33 billion dollars for the budget; the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party wants 40 billion. The difference is only 7 billion dollars, which is about how much we spend in Iraq each day. The Republicans don’t really care about a balanced budget, as evidence on their insistence late last year to extend the Bush-era tax cut to the wealthy. It’s estimated that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy will cost the Government $700 billion dollars over the next ten years.

The real issue at hand is ideology, not the budget. The Republicans are trying to create a crisis for the purpose of manipulating the public to turn against popular programs that are pet projects of the Democratic Party. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, community heath centers, EPA, Department of Education, etc… The Republican leadership also seek to slow the economic recovery, which they feel will hurt Obama at the polls in 2012.

Wow, I don't think I've read such a skewed and biased analysis of this issue. Now, I could follow the footsteps of the non-theists on this board and ask you to "prove it" or type of infamous "opinion noted" rebuttal, but I don't think I will. By the way, weren't you just whining in this thread about unsubstantiated claims? It 'really sucks' debating you when you think you can tell others what they are to do but than turn around and do it yourself. Now, do you understand anything about government finance and what economists (even Obama's Debt Comission) are saying about Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid? Probably not, which is what probably led to the creation of this "analytical" post . As for this: "The Republican leadership also seek to slow the economic recovery, which they feel will hurt Obama at the polls in 2012." Are you looking for an intelligent debate on policy? Or are you just looking to toss around pathetic flamebaiters, which was just something you were crying about in another thread?

[nursebenjamin]

I blame the Democrats for a failure to stand up for their core principles, and the complete failure to articulate a loud and clear message.

What principles would those be?

Health care is a right and the poor should have equal access to good health.
Progressive tax structure is needed to reduce economic inequality.
Workers deserve a living wage.
People should not be discriminated against based on their gender, race, age, religion, nationality, disability, or sexually orientation.
Support for reproductive rights for women.
Conservation is important, and the most important environmental concern of the world is anthropogenic greenhouse warming.
Etc…

However, the Republicans more responsible for the budget impasse. Senate Democrats have agreed to cut 33 billion dollars for the budget; the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party wants 40 billion. The difference is only 7 billion dollars, which is about how much we spend in Iraq each day. The Republicans don’t really care about a balanced budget, as evidence on their insistence late last year to extend the Bush-era tax cut to the wealthy. It’s estimated that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy will cost the Government $700 billion dollars over the next ten years.

The real issue at hand is ideology, not the budget. The Republicans are trying to create a crisis for the purpose of manipulating the public to turn against popular programs that are pet projects of the Democratic Party. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, community heath centers, EPA, Department of Education, etc… The Republican leadership also seek to slow the economic recovery, which they feel will hurt Obama at the polls in 2012.

Wow, I don't think I've read such a skewed and biased analysis of this issue. Now, I could follow the footsteps of the non-theists on this board and ask you to "prove it" or type of infamous "opinion noted" rebuttal, but I don't think I will. By the way, weren't you just whining in this thread about unsubstantiated claims? It 'really sucks' debating you when you think you can tell others what they are to do but than turn around and do it yourself. Now, do you understand anything about government finance and what economists (even Obama's Debt Comission) are saying about Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid? Probably not, which is what probably led to the creation of this "analytical" post . As for this: "The Republican leadership also seek to slow the economic recovery, which they feel will hurt Obama at the polls in 2012." Are you looking for an intelligent debate on policy? Or are you just looking to toss around pathetic flamebaiters, which was just something you were crying about in another thread?

Not everything needs to be cited. Common knowledge (that which is found in your average encyclopedia) doesn’t need to be sourced. Facts and figures should be. Claims and arguments should be supported with evidence.


<<<Senate Democrats have agreed to cut 33 billion dollars for the budget; the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party wants 40 billion.>>>

Democrats had agreed to $33 billion in cuts, but most Republicans were demanding $61 billion (not $40 billion -- my bad). Thursday morning, there were reports that Beohner would agree to $40 billion in cuts.[1] The parties were bickering over a difference of $7 billion dollars in a budget of $3.46 trillion dollars. Then abortion entered into the equation, and the bickering when on. A compromise came Friday with an agreement on $38.5 billion in spending cuts.

I wrote this on Thursday, and all this was the front page news in almost every newspaper. i.e. I thought this was "common knowledge".

<<<…which is about how much we spend in Iraq each day.>>>

The total cost of the Iraq War is admittedly difficult to determine, but it's a lot of cash. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2017, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will have cost the US taxpayers $2.4 trillion dollars. This price tag includes a huge amount of interest payments because combat is being financed with borrowed money.[2] Other conservative estimates put the cost of the Iraq conflict at more than $3 trillion.[3] Equipment and vehicles used in Iraq have been damaged or destroyed; this equipment needs to be repaired or replaced. And none of these numbers take into account the long term health care and mental health care costs for wounded Iraq war veterans.

<<<Republicans don’t really care about a balanced budget, as evidence on their insistence late last year to extend the Bush-era tax cut to the wealthy. It’s estimated that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy will cost the Government $700 billion dollars over the next ten years.>>>

According to the Congressional Budget Office, extending the Bush-Era tax cuts over the next decade will add $3.3 trillion to the national debt ($2.65 trillion in foregone tax revenue plus another $0.66 trillion for interest).[4] It’s my understanding that economists generally agreed that the tax cuts should be extended for the lower and middle classes for at least two years in order to prevent a economic recovery slowdown.

However, Republicans would not agree to this extension unless the tax cuts were also extended to the wealthy -- those making over $250,000.[5] It’s estimated that tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 will add $700 billion to the national debt.


<<<The Republicans are trying to create a crisis for the purpose of manipulating the public to turn against popular programs that are pet projects of the Democratic Party.>>>

Long-term budget forecasts do look problematic, but the current short-term deficits are not so much. The short-term deficits are mainly caused by the economic crisis – which (A) required economic stimulus packages, and (B) caused tax revenues to plunge. If anything, the current deficits should be larger because the government should be doing more to create jobs and stimulate the economy, in my opinion. Nonetheless, the economic stimulus packages have mostly been spent, and additional stimulus programs are unlikely. And tax revenues will, hopefully, recover. And of course, these deficits will need to be repaid in the future when the economy is better

Underlying the short-term deficits, there are additional problems. There is longer-term budget problems that will not be solved even with a full economic recovery. The long-term problem is driven primarily by (A) Bush-era policies that were paid for by deficit spending: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tax cuts, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit; and (B) the projected inflation of health care costs.[5]

Republicans have been trying to rid the country of Social Security and Medicare since they were enacted in 1935 and 1965, respectively. These programs are immensely popular and keep a large number of seniors out of poverty. Republicans are using the short-term deficits as a scare tactic in an attempt to frighten people into supporting the gutting (privatization) of these programs; however, these programs are not apart of the short-term deficit problem. Interestingly, Republicans didn’t seem too concerned about deficits until Obama was elected and left to deal with the Great Recession.


<<<The Republican leadership also seek to slow the economic recovery, which they feel will hurt Obama at the polls in 2012.>>>

I wasn’t aware that this was pathetic flame baiting; I thought that it was apart of the national conversation:
�GOP spending plan would cost 700,000 jobs, new report says�
�Goldman sees danger in US budget cuts�
�Governors warn against U.S. budget cuts�
�Enraged mayors say Republican spending bill is an 'atrocity'�
�Keep the Government Open�
�Serving ideology, not voters�
�House cuts blindly into bone�
�Our view: Republican budget no road map out of fiscal crisis�
�Congressmen should talk to people who benefit from federal spending�


You are aware that several GOP leaders have publicly stated that make Obama a one-term president is their primary goal, right? It’s not jobs, or the economy, or the national debt that matter. It’s defeating Obama in 2012. The most infamous of these comments was by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell following the 2010 midterm elections: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.�[6]

Now, do you understand anything about government finance and what economists (even Obama's Debt Comission) are saying about Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

Yes, do you?

[Choir Loft]

If there is a government shutdown in the United States, who's to blame: the Republications, Democrats, or do both parties share equal blame? The question for debate is who should be blamed and why.

The question provides the opportunity for debate in an endless loop.

Some stand with Democrats and some stand with Republicans. In point of fact America's two party system is nothing less than a two-headed snake (Russell Longcore).

ANY discussion about the joke Washington calls the Federal budget should and ought to be based upon a sound system. Something like arithmetic would be useful. Instead the American public is force fed garbage, smoke and mirrors.

"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests."
Gore Vidal

In point of fact the total shutdown of the Federal government at this point in time might be a good thing.