• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who do you hold at fault for the Govt shutdown?

Who is at fault for the shutdown?

  • Republicans

    Votes: 87 45.3%

  • Democrats

    Votes: 32 16.7%

  • Both

    Votes: 65 33.9%

  • Neither

    Votes: 8 4.2%
  • Total voters
    192
Visbek said:
With all due respect, that article is a massive truckload of BS.

The WSJ called him on it: Heritage Rewrites History - WSJ.com

Fox recognizes Heritage as the origin of the individual mandate: Individual health care insurance mandate has roots two decades long | Fox News


Heritage defended Romneycare, including individual mandates, in 2006: Understanding Key Parts of the Massachusetts Health Plan

And again The Significance of Massachusetts Health Reform
and again The Massachusetts Approach: A New Way To Restructure State Health Insurance Markets And Public Programs
and again Massachusetts Health Reform: What the doctor ordered
Click to expand...

Good call.

The writer of the column is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage foundation...of course he is trying to deflect away.:lamo
 
Henrin said:
Who teaches that healthcare is a human right? No, scratch that. Who teaches that someone else's service/labor is a human right?
Click to expand...

Say you're bleeding out after an auto accident or maybe you have a heart attack while walking down the street. Should we first force you to produce proof that you can pay for help before anyone treats you?

How exactly are we supposed to determine who has insurance and who doesn't when providing emergency care? That's why we require hospitals and EMTs to treat all patients first, and then worry about getting paid second.
 
Mithros said:
Say you're bleeding out after an auto accident or maybe you have a heart attack while walking down the street. Should we first force you to produce proof that you can pay for help before anyone treats you?

How exactly are we supposed to determine who has insurance and who doesn't when providing emergency care? That's why we require hospitals and EMTs to treat all patients first, and then worry about getting paid second.
Click to expand...

Emergency treatment isn't at the root of Obamacare.
 
mac said:
Who, in your opinion, is primarily at fault for the shutdown?
Click to expand...

Both.Both sides have their prized pig that they do not want to let go of.Democrats do not want to budge an inch on Obama-care and republicans do not want to give an inch on trying to defend Obama-care.
 
mac said:
And the Dems refusing anything other than exactly what they want is not unreasonable and childish prickisness?
Click to expand...

... well, in the United Kingdom and other functional democracies, when you want something from the opposition you have to build credit with the opposition.

The Republicans never did that. Furthermore, whenever the Democrats have tried to build credit with Republicans it has been thrown in their face.

Both.Both sides have their prized pig that they do not want to let go of.Democrats do not want to budge an inch on Obama-care and republicans do not want to give an inch on trying to defend Obama-care.
Click to expand...

There is no imperative for the Democrats to give in on Obamacare.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
No one waited until the last minute...this has been an ongoing battle. Obamacare brings in too many things that are detrimental to the country to just "give it a try" when the main positives of it can be addressed in far simpler means.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with this. However, I don't get to shut down the government because I think this. The House has a responsibility to fund the laws on the books. The law can be repealed once the Republicans have enough control to do so.

The democrats should not compromise. No one should be able to use sabotage of the functioning of government as a lever for any reason. The only way to stop the tactic is to refuse to let it pay off.

Using such sabotage as a lever is a framework for governance that will simply not work. What if both sides used it as a lever whenever they disagreed? Absolutely ridiculous to blame both sides every time one side decides to use it.
 
Last edited:
anonymous polls suck
 
Dezaad said:
I pretty much agree with this. However, I don't get to shut down the government because I think this. The House has a responsibility to fund the laws on the books. The law can be repealed once the Republicans have enough control to do so.

The democrats should not compromise. No one should be able to use sabotage of the functioning of government as a lever for any reason. The only way to stop the tactic is to refuse to let it pay off.
Click to expand...

Perhaps WH intransigence drove the Repubs to the view that they could not get a hearing without doing something extraordinary? Dem political malpractice helped bring this about.:peace
 
I believe in universal responsibility. Everyone is responsible for every harm that happens to society if they do not solve the problems of society before something bad happens. So everyone is responsible for the shutdown. That means mostly the american people but also for foreigners who did not try to offer solutions. I am at fault for not having come up with a solution that works, but at least I have tried to offer solutions. We should let the house republican representatives' districts to opt out of the law and not have to pay for it or benefit or be harmed by it. We need a solution everyone likes. This would satisfy the republicans and the democrats. Does anyone else want to avoid blame and offer a solution? What do you guys have to say about my solution or other solutions? We need to solve this because we are responsible for this country, some more than others but everyone has the ability to affect change if they choose to so are responsible for whatever society does. We can control and do anything we want to if we dedicate our selves to doing it so we need to dedicate ourselves to solutions. Right?
 
I'm not sure. It's either Republicrats or Demoblicans.
 
Jack Hays said:
Perhaps WH intransigence drove the Repubs to the view that they could not get a hearing without doing something extraordinary? Dem political malpractice helped bring this about.:peace
Click to expand...

They don't have the votes for repeal. They are defeated for the time being, and need to accept it.

I added a key thought to my post above and am pleased to repeat it:

Using such sabotage as a lever is a framework for governance that will simply not work. What if both sides used it as a lever whenever they disagreed? Absolutely ridiculous to blame both sides every time one side decides to use it.
 
I believe there is enough blame for both parties.
 
Dezaad said:
They don't have the votes for repeal. They are defeated for the time being, and need to accept it.

I added a key thought to my post above and am pleased to repeat it:

Using such sabotage as a lever is a framework for governance that will simply not work. What if both sides used it as a lever whenever they disagreed? Absolutely ridiculous to blame both sides every time one side decides to use it.
Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree. Repub actions are irresponsible and politically stupid, but the Dems have done much to stoke Repub resentment and diminish communication since 2008.:peace
 
Dezaad said:
They don't have the votes for repeal. They are defeated for the time being, and need to accept it.

I added a key thought to my post above and am pleased to repeat it:

Using such sabotage as a lever is a framework for governance that will simply not work. What if both sides used it as a lever whenever they disagreed? Absolutely ridiculous to blame both sides every time one side decides to use it.
Click to expand...

Accept defeat, or do the legwork to have influence as a minority party.

Republicans have this psychotic belief that they should never compromise with Democrats when it feeds their base's ego to play tough but that Democrats always need to compromise with Republicans when the common good of the nation is at stake.

Which adds up to the Republicans never doing or giving anything for Democrats while expecting the Democrats to at least allow them to save face when they're in too deep on divisive issues.

It's like some kind of nightmare marriage where one spouse causes the most trouble and gets the most deference.
 
Morality Games said:
Accept defeat, or do the legwork to have influence as a minority party.

Republicans have this psychotic belief that they should never compromise with Democrats when it feeds their base's ego to play tough but that Democrats always need to compromise with Republicans when the common good of the nation is at stake.

Which adds up to the Republicans never doing or giving anything for Democrats while expecting the Democrats to at least allow them to save face when they're in too deep on divisive issues.

It's like some kind of nightmare marriage where one spouse causes the most trouble and gets the most deference.
Click to expand...

It's a historic dance. Until the 1980's the exact opposite was true.:peace
 
Envisioneer said:
Everyone is responsible for every harm that happens to society if they do not solve the problems of society....
Click to expand...
While somewhat noble, your standard cannot possibly work.

1) No matter how much you try to point out similarities, people will sort themselves into groups, and will have conflicts over those interests.
2) I do not accept responsibility for someone whose ideas and actions are completely different than my own.
3) It doesn't make sense to suggest that someone in Georgia (and is not a national figure) is responsible for the actions of someone in, say, California.


That means mostly the american people but also for foreigners who did not try to offer solutions.
Click to expand...
It's not the job of a citizen of Kenya to tell American legislators what to do.


We should let the house republican representatives' districts to opt out of the law and not have to pay for it or benefit or be harmed by it.
Click to expand...
No, we shouldn't.


We need a solution everyone likes.
Click to expand...
No such solution exists.

There are 300 million people in the US. Legislatures almost never reach total consensus. I'm stunned that we all agree that "2+2=4" let alone something as complex as health care reform.

The simple fact is that like it or not, the decision has been made. The bill was passed into law, it was vetted by the SCOTUS, has survived an absurd number of repeal attempts, and survived an election which was in no small part a referendum on the ACA. It's over.

The real solution is to get rid of the procedural nonsense which allows a small group (of any political persuasion) to hold the entire government hostage, and for the Republicans to realize that swinging harder to the right is costing them elections.
 
mac said:
Yes it is. No law before required an individual to purchase health insurance.
Click to expand...
Switching criteria again, the CONCEPT was not new.



No, the government making your personal decisions for you is an attack on personal liberty. Without doubt.
Click to expand...
You don't have to purchase anything, your false sense of liberty is still intact, you can still be an irresponsible citizen....if that is what you are arguing for.



That's incorrect. Children are not on welfare, the parents of said children are.
Click to expand...
Children receive, are counted, are funded via their household, whether it is a parent, guardian.....whatever.

M
any of them are employed and have made insanely bad decisions getting them to where they are. Should the government tell them they can't have anymore (or any) kids until they can learn to live responsibly?
Click to expand...
Bait and switch...no sale.



That's not a tangent, homey.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was, it still is.
 
I blame the voters.
 
Morality Games said:
... well, in the United Kingdom and other functional democracies, when you want something from the opposition you have to build credit with the opposition.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, different system, different laws.

The Republicans never did that. Furthermore, whenever the Democrats have tried to build credit with Republicans it has been thrown in their face.
Click to expand...

BS. The Republicans have been compromising with Democrats for 5 years.

There is no imperative for the Democrats to give in on Obamacare.
Click to expand...

And so no Imperative for the Republicans to work with them. The house funds government, and it's run by Republicans.
 
Of course the Republicans.

The problem now is that the GOP has gerrymandered Congressional districts soo much that they don't care what The People think or what the polls say.

Most Republicans only have to convince their extremist base in order to keep their seats.

That's why Boehner is afraid to let the House vote on a clean budget resolution. He knows it may pass with all Democrats and 17 Republicans voting "YES". Then it will pass the Senate in 5 minutes and be signed by Obama in 2 minutes.

And THAT would piss off Republican extremists. Which means they would nominate more extremists in 2014 and this will lead to more Moderate Democrats winning House seats and a few more Republican extremists winning House seats, neither of which is good for the GOP.

Boehner is stuck between a rock and a hard place and he doesn't know which is worse.

He is going to have to choose between pleasing the minority Tea Party or the majority Democrats and Moderate Republicans.

I think in the end Boehner will make the right choice.
 
mac said:
Irrelevant, different system, different laws.



BS. The Republicans have been compromising with Democrats for 5 years.



And so no Imperative for the Republicans to work with them. The house funds government, and it's run by Republicans.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

How you doing? Were you banned from the Abortion forum?
 
It is quite apparent that this site attracts far more liberals than conservatives...
 
americanwoman said:
There's no poll yet but I think it's ridiculous neither side can compromise. Yes, there are provisions that need to be worked out but why did the ones who oppose it not only wait until the last minute but have no alternative to bring to the table. Something needs to be done with healthcare and while Obamacare isn't perfect it's a start and maybe we should give it a try and if it doesn't work, then fix it.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem with that notion. The republicans are not asking that the dems compromise on obamacare they have the very staunch condition that it be delayed. They are wrapping it in lots of distractions but without that concession they won't move. It seems like an issue of not giving in to the bully.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Switching criteria again, the CONCEPT was not new.
Click to expand...

Who cares when the concept came into being? Enacting it in law certainly is new.

You don't have to purchase anything, your false sense of liberty is still intact, you can still be an irresponsible citizen....if that is what you are arguing for.
Click to expand...

And be penalized for it...i.e. have your liberty infringed for doing so. Just like when you break any other law. Stupid point.

Children receive, are counted, are funded via their household, whether it is a parent, guardian.....whatever.
Click to expand...

They do not recieve funds from the govt. Period. Your attempt at plucking heartstrings is moot.

M Bait and switch...no sale.
Click to expand...

interpretation: "I only talk about responsibility when it serves my purpose."

Yes, it was, it still is.
Click to expand...

No, it's a prime example of why your "responsibility" point is irrelevant. You're obviously not concerned with responsibility being enforced in any other circumstance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom