Brian Sapient took on this right wing pundit, but should we be surpised she sank this low?

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian Sapient took on this right wing pundit, but should we be surpised she sank this low?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
would love to see this but

would love to see this but don't have fucking facebook and refuse to get it.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 How did she "sink low"?

 How did she "sink low"? All she did was point out that the Republicans are going to lose and end up looking like douches, which is probably a correct assessment of the situation and one that seems to be the popular one here. 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/01/laura-ingraham-sob-stories-from-injured-veterans-will-make-gop-cave-on-shutdown/

 

Are you mad about the vets not getting care? She has nothing to do with that decision, nor suggesting it is a good thing. She merely predicted that it will happen and the Republicans will be blamed for it.

Do you think the administration is sinking equally as low? The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is under direct control of Obama and they are the ones who decide exactly what gets funded and what does not. So if vets are denied care, they are the ones that directly decided not to fund it. 

Hell, the whole shutdown could be averted with a single stroke of the President's pen. The whole modern concept of a shutdown came from an opinion written by Attorney General Civiletti which reinterpreted the Antideficiency Act- a law written in 1884. For almost 100 years, when congress failed to agree on a budget the federal government continued operating fairly normally. Then AG Civiletti wrote an opinion reinterpreting the law so that only "essential" services (as defined by the OMB) continued being provided and was the start of the modern shutdown. Obama could easily have Holder write a new opinion on interpreting the law if he wished, or simply ignore it. AG opinions have no legal force, they are merely recommendations on specific steps government should do to remain consistent with laws.

Such a move might cause a lawsuit that would have to be decided in court if anyone wanted to push it. Chances are, no one would, no one did for 100 years when during a shutdown government agencies just slowed down issuing checks. The organizations that were supposed to get those checks just continued about business as usual because they know that sooner or later congress is going to compromise and the money will flow again. This has actually happened to me at the county level last year where there was a political conflict in appropriating the money the county owed my company. I didn't pull up stakes and tell all my employees to stay home. We worked as usual and sure enough a week later the issue was resolved and we got our money- a little late but no big deal.

Ultimately, it is a political move by Presidents to pick and choose which programs get funded and which don't. Which is probably why no AG since has changed the opinion, it is a very powerful tool they can use to make sure that congress looks bad while they look good. Over the years Presidents have chosen a variety of strategies to either minimize the effects felt by the general public or to maximize them depending on whether they think they are going to get the blame or congress gets the blame.

Clearly Obama has decided that for him the best strategy is to maximize the discomfort felt by the public, leading to ridiculous decisions to close down parking lots that don't need immediate maintenance or attempting to shut down privately owned campgrounds that don't take a penny of federal money. Or telling people that Mount Vernon is closed even though it is privately owned and the only thing the government has to do with it is they gave them a grant years ago to build a parking lot- which is not maintained by the government in any way. Or to block off the WWII memorial even though it costed more money to block it off than to simply not show up to work. Sure, sooner or later the memorial is going to need maintenance, but it doesn't need it now and the shutdown isn't going to last forever. 

http://nhpr.org/post/federal-shutdown-expands-privately-run-campgrounds-national-forests

From his point of view, it will probably be a very effective strategy, as the Republicans seem to be getting the brunt of the blame for causing the shutdown. So the more people affected by it the more mad they will be at Republicans. It is a good political move, but it is also kind of dirty because the pain doesn't have to be as bad and Obama has absolute control in determining how bad the pain is but can blame the republicans.  

I have seen this strategy backfire on a local level. When I lived in Des Moines the Mayor decided to turn off all the traffic lights in the city during a shutdown while continuing to fund all sorts of bullshit programs. The lights were still "on" because the yellow light was flashing, they just didn't change. I'm not entirely sure how that saves money, the electric bill on a yellow flashing light can't be significantly different than for a steady red/yellow/green. He succeeded in making the public very mad, but failed at framing the city council and found his ass promptly thrown out the next election. On the national level, I have a hunch that Obama will fair better politically.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 http://www.militarytimes.co

 http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20131003/NEWS05/310030032/House-passes-shutdown-exemption-VA

Meanwhile, the Republicans have been passing many bills to fund popular programs like veterans benefits, cancer care for kids etc. until the budget issues are resolved. It is the Senate and President who have taken a hard line insisting they get 100% of what they want in a funding bill or nothing. Not that I believe the Republicans give a flying fuck about kids with cancer or veterans. As critics have suggested it is a pretty naked ploy to make Democrats look bad, and one the Democrats have apparently decided they can play into without too much damage. 

Ultimately, the lesson we should learn from this is that virtually no one in DC gives a flying fuck about anything other than their political futures. They are concerned about your welfare only insofar as being concerned about your welfare helps them. When you are receiving government benefits, you are a pawn to them and they can use the threat of taking away those benefits or the carrot of giving you more for their own political gain. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I don't have facebook and

I don't have facebook and never will.

I'm a disabled vet and I am not getting my money from the government, so I'm sort of "meh" but I also have a job and I have health care so I'm not bothered by it.