Wait, where was this small government with no ability to pay its social debts? Because I sure as heck didn't see that outcome. Just because a bunch of people on the TV kept talking about this supposed default doesn't mean the government wasn't willing and able to pay on the debt.
Your biased one-sided complaint completely sidesteps the issues at hand. The article that sparked this discussion quite correctly points out the problems that led us here when two sets, TWO mind you, of ideologies refuse to back down and compromise. You say conservatives got what they wanted with the shutdown? I say both groups got what they wanted out of this in their own way and we'll go through it all again in February.
You need to get out of this "us-vs-them" attitude and realize that two different people who strongly disagree with each other may still have a point on the topic at hand.
The only way the states will restore their former power is not through civil war, but through the total collapse of the federal government. Things have gone too far in terms of centralizing power for anything other than total failure to reverse the trend. It's just that no one knows when or if this would be.
Though he may not mean it this way, he has a point about federal power causing this inability to compromise. As a voter in Kentucky, if you get fed up with Kentucky politics, you can move to Oregon or Tennessee.
But when all laws are federal, the stakes are higher for everyone, so drastic measures will be taken.
That is an excellent point. You can still vote with your feet on the federal level, but unfortunately that involves leaving the country which in the end solves nothing.
This shutdown was not caused by lack of compromise. This was a hijacking of a run-of-the-mill spending bill to do an end-run around all accepted legal and legislative challenges to Obamacare championed by a miniscule fraction of fringe politicians. The spending bill is merely approving money for things that already passed, not a forum for legislative challenges. There were no negotiations or compromises to be had, and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the next election cycle.
We must have read from different sources, I saw both sides refusing to negotiate. I think there were even a few quotes along the lines of "I won't negotiate". It may be just me, but when someone says publicly that they do not wish to negotiate with the other side, I take that to mean they do not wish to negotiate regardless of what the proposals might be.
Funny that you said there were no negotiations or compromises to be had when in the end that what was done to get the thing passed. Everything in politics that requires voting by multiple parties involves negotiations. By your logic there was no reason to vote on the thing at all because there was nothing to discuss.
You don't have to wait until the next election cycle, all this did was kick the can down the road to early next year. We'll soon be back to the children in the playground playing "who blinks first".
The time for negotiation was before any of the legislation was passed, not at the moment of implementation. In fact, there really has been no compromise at all. The only "compromise" the Republican caucus was able to extract was more stringent income verification of those people who requested financial assistance paying for health insurance. Considering Cruz and co. wanted complete dissolution or delay of the ACA, I would say that this whole display was a complete and utter disaster. The vast majority of his (Ted Cruz's) own party was not behind him. This was simply political posturing for his own presidential aspirations.
You are correct that we are simply kicking the can down the road, but this sideshow was not the way to handle it. Holding the "non-essential" employees of the federal government ransom is ridiculous on its face. What did they expect the outcome was going to be? That Barack Obama would accept a "compromise" that would neuter his landmark piece of legislation? His magnum opus? Please. This is 110% politics.
Ah, so the only time to discuss a law is when it's a bill before it is passed into a law. That's interesting because I'm quite certain that is in no way how it works. Changes in laws are negotiated all the time. Sometimes willingly by Congress, sometimes forced to by the Supreme Court, and sometimes because the law itself was written to cause the occasional discussion about its own future. Sometimes a law is so badly written it just needs someone to stand up and say it is a bad law. There will be people will attack/defend the law to the last day simply because they have a vested interest in doing so. That's politics.
But having the childish attitude of "its the law of the land" only works for one side as long as we're talking about a law they support. As soon as the opposition pulls the same stunt then all of a sudden that's not a proper defense of discussing problems with a law.
Now, to be clear, I did not support the stunt performed in the Senate. I understood the intention behind it but it was a lost cause before it even started. For one, no matter what happened the Republicans would get the blame for the shutdown because that's always the outcome. The other reason being that the ACA was going forward despite what they would do. Notice how when the shutdown happened federal websites went down almost across the board? Notice how the ACA website was still up and running? Or it attempted to at least. Notice how they were arguing over funding the thing but it moved forward regardless? Interesting how they had to shut down parks that cost them next to nothing to run but could keep working on the ACA website that cost much more. That stunt in the Senate was a waste of time simply because it was going to go forward despite anything the Republicans did. The administration has already ignored rules, regulations, and laws in attempts to get it going, did anyone think that stupid stunt would somehow magically stop it?
As for the President's "I won't negotiate" while accusing the other side of not negotiating, which you seem to support this silly notion, was a mistake. Because one day the Republicans may gain control of the three branches of the government and make a "law of the land" that completely removes the ACA from the books. Will they be able to do so and the Democrats just sit idly by to do nothing? After all, when the Democrats have majority they behave as if the minority should sit down and shut up. "We won", "we have the majority". Those things work both ways. When the Democrats are the minority again, will they advise their members to do what they demanded of the previous minority? I don't expect them to and, in a way, hope that they don't. Regardless, we all know they will take that hypocritical stance. That is 110% politics.
Your biased one-sided complaint completely sidesteps the issues at hand. The article that sparked this discussion quite correctly points out the problems that led us here when two sets, TWO mind you, of ideologies refuse to back down and compromise. You say conservatives got what they wanted with the shutdown? I say both groups got what they wanted out of this in their own way and we'll go through it all again in February.
You need to get out of this "us-vs-them" attitude and realize that two different people who strongly disagree with each other may still have a point on the topic at hand.
The only way the states will restore their former power is not through civil war, but through the total collapse of the federal government. Things have gone too far in terms of centralizing power for anything other than total failure to reverse the trend. It's just that no one knows when or if this would be.