Full faith and credit and showdownarama 2013

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

While I agree that this would resolve the issue, may I point out that this is just another take from the rich, give to the poor solution.

...

So, quid pro quo, removing caps is just a robin hood solution.

At the end of the day, I agree this is likely the fundamental issue.

If I May go "high-bandwidth" (and sorry, my spell checker just crashed):

1. Wny is Socialism assumed to be so evil by some humans, when it seems to work reasonable well for many other animals and insects (and even humans, if done correctly)?

2. Why is Capitalism assumed to be so evil by some humans, when during its relatively brief experimentational period it does seems to promote advancement of technology and industry and life-span (although, admittedly, not currently equally)?

3. Given a closed group of humans, can it not be argued that it is to the overall benefit of the aggregate group if all (or, at least, almost all) are fed, housed and healthy?

4. Currently, is the entire Earth's human population effectively a closed group?

May we live in interesting times....

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

So, quid pro quo, removing caps is just a robin hood solution.

Which, of course, is not an argument against it.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Which, of course, is not an argument against it.

+1

[kladner]

Originally Posted by chappy

+1

Indeed. Thanks, Bob. Short and sweet and to the point.

[only_human]

The House made sure they would get their shutdown (TL/DR option, skim to my bolding):
House Republicans Changed The Rules So A Majority Vote Couldn't Stop The Government Shutdown [huffingtonpost.com]

In its effort to extract concessions from Democrats in exchange for opening the government, the GOP has faced a fundamental strategic obstacle: They don't have the votes. A majority of the members of the House have gone on record saying that if they were given the opportunity to vote, they would support what's known as a "clean" continuing resolution to fund the government.

So House Republican leaders made sure no such vote could happen.

In the hours working up to the government shutdown on Sept. 30, Republican members of the House Rules Committee were developing a strategy to keep a clean CR off the floor, guaranteeing the government would remain shut down.

Though at least 28 House Republicans have publicly said they would support a clean CR if it were brought to the floor -- enough votes for the government to reopen when combined with Democratic support -- a House rule passed just before the shutdown essentially prevents that vote from taking place.

Look at how removing the risk of default (lifting debt-ceiling) or even a budget (AKA government funding measure) would be rejected (this would end the CR choo-choo train and budgets also typically lift the debt-ceiling) and how birth control and future leverage are still part of the battle late Saturday (skim to my bold):
Senate leaders take over government shutdown talks [washingtonpost.com]

In a raucous meeting in the Capitol basement Saturday morning, Boehner told his Republican colleagues that talks between the House GOP and Obama had broken down. He and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) urged members to hold firm, several said, as McConnell and Reid worked on a deal.

“All eyes are now on the Senate,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.).

The leaders, however, began the meeting trying to prepare their troops for the likelihood that they would have to adopt a deal cut in the Senate. Both leaders explained that the White House is no longer willing to negotiate with the House, that McConnell and Reid were talking, and that a bipartisan agreement is likely to emerge that will need the House’s approval.

But instead of absorbing this painful reality, some rank-and-file Republicans grew visibly excited about the prospect of opposing such a deal, said one person in the room. This defiance was fed by Ryan, who stood up and railed against the Collins proposal, saying the House could not accept either a debt-limit bill or a government-funding measure that would delay the next fight until the new year.

According to two Republicans familiar with the exchange, Ryan argued that the House would need those deadlines as “leverage” for delaying the health-care law’s individual mandate and adding a “conscience clause” — allowing employers and insurers to opt out of birth-control coverage if they find it objectionable on moral or religious grounds — and mentioned tax and entitlement goals Ryan had focused on in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

Ryan’s speech appeared only to further rile up the conservative wing of the GOP conference, which has been agitating the shutdown strategy to try to tear apart the health-care law.

With such fervor still rampant among House Republicans, there was bipartisan agreement in the Senate that Boehner’s House had lost its ability to approve anything that could be signed by Obama into law.

Originally Posted by chalsall

(and sorry, my spell checker just crashed):

1. Wny is Socialism assumed to be so evil by some humans, when it seems to work reasonable well for many other animals and insects (and even humans, if done correctly)?

2. Why is Capitalism assumed to be so evil by some humans, when during its relatively brief experimentational period it does seems to promote advancement of technology and industry and life-span (although, admittedly, not currently equally)?

TL/DR option: About government {commun,social}-ism humor/painful observations, jump to the final quote in my post:
Exchange program gives Russians a glimpse of a democracy hardly at work [washingtonpost.com]

The group had come all the way from Russia, part of a ­foreign-exchange program set up by Congress to show off the virtues of American democracy.

But when they got here, neither Congress nor American democracy was having its best day.

“No. No way,” said Ekaterina Ivanova, a TV journalist from Moscow, recalling her reaction when she heard what was going on.

For some reason, the legislators who had paid for her to visit had now shut down the government they wanted her to see. “It’s a joke,” Ivanova thought.

It wasn’t, of course. And so, on Day 10 of the government shutdown, among the many confused and displaced souls in Washington were 49 Russian educators, scientists and journalists brought here by the Open World Leadership Center, a kind of vanity project for Congress.

The mission of this 14-year-old program is to give foreign leaders, especially those from former Soviet republics, an up-close look at “America’s democratic, accountable government.”

Eduard Temnov, an educator from a city near Moscow, chuckled and told a joke in Russian. He had realized something: What he was witnessing in Washington wasn’t actually democracy!

It was actually a highly advanced vision of socialism. Here was what the old theorists had promised: a society functioning on its own, with no leaders in charge.

“Maybe you will come to communism soon!” he said. “No government . . . but people are still managing!”

[Fusion_power]

If I were arguing against it, I would have used a much different statement. But since you bring up the subject, why should someone pay into SS many times over the amount they can ever possibly draw out? How much do you anticipate paying in and how much will you be likely to draw out?


Also, based on family history, I am likely to live at least 90 and possibly more than 100 years. I will probably draw out much more than I ever pay in. This presumes that there is something to draw and that SS is still solvent when I retire at 70 in 16 years.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

If I were arguing against it, I would have used a much different statement. But since you bring up the subject, why should someone pay into SS many times over the amount they can ever possibly draw out? How much do you anticipate paying in and how much will you be likely to draw out?

It is called a social contract. It is part of the price we ALL pay for
living in a stable, peaceful (mostly) society. One of those prices is
that we support our elders and those who are unable to work.

I pay more in income taxes than I receive in return. So what?

I call the attitude that SS is "good" iff one can draw out as much as one
puts in SELFISH.

[Fusion_power]

Capitalism is inherently selfish. However, I think you are reading into my statements a multitude of meanings that do not exist.

I live in a state that currently votes heavily republican. If democrats supported second amendment rights, this state would significantly change position.

I don't accept the current republican posturing and "bring them to their knees" attitude. IMO, this is likely to have a huge backlash in the next elections. The probability is that both senate and house will gain democrat majorities a year from now. This upsets me tremendously. When I look at the overall best political climate for the American people, it seems to come from having the politicians at loggerheads with each other. Either a democrat president with a republican congress or vice versa works best because laws that are passed have to have consensus backing.

My personal position re ACA is ambivalent. It does not cost me anything extra, it does not benefit me directly. Where I do see a benefit is that two of my adult children will be able to get insurance now that was unavailable to them before. This also applies to many other people I know who will now have access to medical care. I consider this to be a legitimate goal of a democratic society. It should be run for the people's benefit.

I'll add a minor quibble that the U.S. is not a democracy. If you question this, look up democracy, federalism, monarchy, oligarchy, communism, and socialism and see which one fits.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

I'll add a minor quibble that the U.S. is not a democracy. If you question this, look up democracy, federalism, monarchy, oligarchy, communism, and socialism and see which one fits.

That's not a quibble, that's a fact. The US of A is a Republic.

If the US of A was a true Democracy than Gore would have won the 2000 election.

Tangential: Imagine the world today if Albert Gore had been in Command rather than George W. Bush after the 911 attacks...

IMO you probably would have still gone into Afghanistan, but probably not Iraq. And the East would possibly not be in such chaos....

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by chalsall

That's not a quibble, that's a fact. The US of A is a Republic.

Coming up through the US school system, we were taught over and over that the US is a "representative democracy". You seem to be insisting on a dichotomy where none exists:

A republic is literally a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern of the rulers, in which public offices are subsequently appointed or elected rather than privately accommodated, i.e. through inheritance or divine mandate. In modern times, the common definition of a republic is a government which excludes a monarch.
...
In modern republics such as France, Russia, the United States, India, and Mexico the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.[3]

If the US of A was a true Democracy than Gore would have won the 2000 election.

You are talking about how that representation occurs in the presidential-election context. I have long argued that the Electoral College system is archaic and should be abolished, but it's not up to me, except by way of my single (potential) vote.

In your vision of a "true Democracy" would governments even be necessary? If so, in what form and role?

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

We now return our readers to the previous discussion of whether the deficit problem can be solved by borrowing more money, or something.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

In your vision of a "true Democracy" would governments even be necessary? If so, in what form and role?

In my opinion, the definition of Democracy is where every entity has an equal vote to answer the question at hand.

And the decision to the question is based on what the majority votes.

Naive, I know....