|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
The way in which you frame it is as if your side has the moral high ground. You say things like "they acted in such a way that people disapproved..." That's not relevant nor is it even known. This is not a democracy;
If calling it not a democracy helps you sleep better at night, fine. Fact is, we decide things in this nation by voting.
And yeah, considering they tried and failed multiple times to repeal obamacare, turning to defunding the government so that they can get their way pretty much gives me the moral high ground. (PS; when democrats halt judge nominations and do shit like this, im against it as well...but we're talking about the shutdown)
Disapproval rates for your viewing pleasure
-http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/shutdown-poll-gop-disapproval-grows-098284
-http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-americans-not-happy-about-shutdown-more-blame-gop/
-http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/10/03/fox-news-poll-voters-support-obamacare-delay-disapprove-congress/
-http://freebeacon.com/issues/americans-disapproval-of-congress-hits-41-year-high/
We cant know that people disapproved of their actions just like we cant know if people disapprove of obamacare. They both rest on the same assumptions about how we measure people's approval.
representatives of a Republic do not have any duty to fall in line with the media narrative. It was not one group obstructing the rightness of another group. The shutdown wasn't even a tactic but a consequence of votes. The "will of the people" is non-sequitur. The Democrats are not entitled to new spending. The shutdown was a byproduct of the refusal by the Democrats to reign in Washington's profligacy as the Republicans were trying to do so. If to pay your mortgage you take out other loans and eventually those other lenders stop loaning funds to you, you don't get to blame them for you getting kicked out of your house. But that's what the Democrats and the media (and your argument) posit. The shutdown has nothing to do with obstructing government function, but with some of the lenders trying to reign in profligacy.
Media narrative my ass. Ted Cruz spoke on the damn floor for 21 hours trying to get obamacare defunded, Speaker Boehner refused to let bills even get to the floor, and everytime the Senate attempted to get a normal funding bill through, it got denied because this group of republicans just couldnt fathom passing a spending bill that didnt include their last ditch "please work please work, we've tried every other way to get rid of obamacare" method. This isnt media narrative, on the contrary, those reports stating otherwise are conservative attempts to change history and remember what happened in a better light than what it was.
"Dems not entitled to new spending" now thats a non-sequiter. We're not getting into another "why have government" debate. Our nation currently relies on funding, and even libertarians would agree that just flat out stopping it isnt the correct approach.
Idk what youre even talking about with the mortgage thing. That isnt what happened at all. The republicans were not attempting to stop funding because we're in debt, they were doing it to undercut obamacare...as seen in the actual bills that hit the floor. It was not that we were providing funding to 800,000 workers that didnt deserve it, that was never an issue that anyone ever brought up. This was entirely about healthcare, and a subset of republicans refusing to go along with it.
Related, I can turn the entire thing around and say it was the Democrats who were obstructionist and people who hold positions like yours who were obstructionist. It is not a privilege, but a right, for Senators to not approve spending if they wish to not approve spending. It is also the duty of legislators to uphold and engage constitutional principles. Just because it is immensely popular these days to disregard constitutional governance and to write a blank check to an executive who pushes to undermine the constitution doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Ya, anyone can make any argument. That doesnt mean theyre rational or even supported by evidence. Once again you're turning this into some "we need to stop spending because we're in debt" argument, but again, that isnt what this was about. Its not the media who say so, it was the legislation. Boehner can say "debt ceiling" all he wants, it doesnt change the fact that bills were sent back and forth between the house and senate and the only difference was the funding of obamacare.
If you get only one thing out of this, make it the mortgage analogy. By not voting to raise the debt ceiling, the shutdown was a consequence. It would have been nice if the media had held the Democrats' feet to the fire for their intense irresponsibility, but that didn't happen. As is reflected in your version of what happened, the Democrats are the good guys and the country is unquestionably entitled to increases in profligacy, while the Republicans are baddy obstructionists who want to undermine the (obscure) will of the people. It's not so.
No, that isnt how it happened. This was not about the "debt ceiling". The media didnt hold the dems feet to the fire because it isnt something that happened. You're falling for the spin, not the facts.
|
Reply With Quote
