"In jest, there is truth."

Wm. Shakespeare


<O>

Don't make the mistake of thinking the shutdown is a product of two parties.

I'm not a fan of saying that a situation exists because of just one factor - it's usually untrue.

But in this case the GOP made a specific decision to avoid negotiation and use crises in order to get what they want.

This should surprise nobody.

I was wondering when this guy was gonna chime in.

The Truth About the Government Shutdown (22:56)

He's acutally one of my subscriptions on youtube. I don't always listen to his show, but he articulates his arguments very well.

Ok two sentences in and this guy is lying.

"Republicans are asking for a one year delay in implementing Obamacare and a medical device tax repeal in exchange for funding Obamacare"

Flat out wrong.

They're asking for those things in exchange for funding everything.

Man I was bummed to find out OSHA can't send anyone to my job sites.
:har:

Though I do see the wisdom in your words, I'll explain briefly why I think it is the Democrat's that are the most capable of the things I described.

For one, general outlook on the scope of government. Generally speaking, Republicans are for smaller government with less oversight, Democrats are for larger government with more oversight. I do not think it a coincidence that areas with that are controlled by the Democrats also happen to be areas that have more taxes and regulation. (See California)

For two, and for me this is paramount, the general outlook on the supreme law of the land. The United States Constitution and the Bill of rights. For the most part, Republicans don't mess with it. Yes, they are guilty of installing nanny state like apparatus in the form of some agency like the TSA that seems to go around individual liberties. However, the difference lies in that the Democrats will go after your individual liberties directly. Their outlook is that the supreme law of the land, means, whatever they think it means. They see the Constitution and Bill of rights as a "living document" that is flexible in meaning. Which in all reality is the same as saying, "Your rights are what we say they are."

Add in those two items, with the outright lies that career politicians are capable of (plenty of examples with Obama on youtube), and make ineffective any opposition so they can ramrod whatever they want, and its a recipe for future disaster.

Republicans don't seem to be wild about the 14th Amendment.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Strange. The idea is that a shutdown is so bad that it will force Democratic lawmakers to get rid of the ACA.

Now today we had Sen Cruz proposing funding a few agencies, the VA and national parks. What's the point, to make the shutdown better for the country? Then where's the leverage to get rid of the ACA?

LOL why does OSHA get such a bad rep? They are one govt agency I dont have a problem with, on paper anyways.Sure they go overboard, as govt tends to do.

I see where you're coming from, and at face value perhaps that is certainly the case, but equally both sides of the political spectrum are quite capable of undertaking an increase of their power at the expense of the public. At the risk of Godwinning, one should look at Hitler and Stalin, both had a keen urge to centralise power, both kept the public in line through application of police forces, but politically they were at opposite ends of the spectrum. This is before we factor in the people who put the money in the political banks, the big businesses and corporations, and...yes...religious organisations too, all of those have interests and influence within the political system and can push a political leader in particular directions.
So I would be reluctant to paint the Republicans as apostles of mercy, or the Democrats as power grabbing dictators, and vice versa, since things are rarely ever as simple as that, would that they were! :salute:

Yes, but you don't see the Republicans using the IRS to go after it's critics, you don't see then trying to do away with the second amendment, you don't see them trying to impede on the first amendment with the "fairness doctrine", you don't see them pushing for nationalized health care, mandated,.Don't see Republicans (in general) pushing the living constitution BS to justify their marxist excuse me, progressive policies. Certainly was not a Republican who signed the NDAA allowing for indefinite detention of US citizens or allowing drone strikes on US citizens without trial.Which are, as I have mentioned, tantamount to summary executions.Did Bush use drones? yes, far as I know though, not on use citizens, could be wrong but no sure.Obama has killed several american citizens with drone strikes.

Republicans have their down side, especially the party of Bush which had neocons in charge but we are pretty much weeding the pseudo liberal neocons out and getting real conservatives in charge of the party, but aside from the patriot act, which was an emotional , knee jerk reaction on all sides to 9/11, they are much more respectful of the constitution and american tradition than democrats which is nothing more than the far left socialist party of american or the progressive party lol.

You've obviously never dealt with OSHA. I worked as a Sr Project Manager for a large contractor for 25 years. The amount of paperwork and regulations is crazy.

You have never dealt with OSHA before then.The idea is good requiring proper safety gear and such on work sites.Only thing is it is pretty much self regulated.In the Air Force they where insanely strict with it but that was the military and they have QA that just adds OSHA stuff to their QA list(Quality Assurance).

In the rest of the US you can call an OSHA rep and have them inspect a work site on any business for that matter(OSHA covers all work safety).That is why you have an MSDS even the most modest work place has one or is supposed just for say cleaning chemicals in the store room.If you have not heard of that well you have never truly worked or even offices have an MSDS.

Anyway you can call an OSHA rep and report an unsafe work site and they will come and inspect it.To some extent an irritated worker in many industries might gripe to his cohorts that he going to OSHA to get back at the boss.I suspect this is what Privateer is referring too.This strategy does not work because the OSHA guys just advise that things be corrected it would have to some serious accident to get in real trouble with OSHA.

The thing with OSHA is it is still the employees duty to use the safety gear.For example a welder they have to wear the steel toe boots which are provided by the employer or the hard hat or whatever.Something you might find is a factory having busted safety guards but it is pretty rare being a huge liability as I am sure you can imagine.


Anyway OSHA means tons of paperwork more than anything else.Just take a peek when a janitor goes into his store room and look for the huge 3 binder notebook on the wall that is the MSDS just part of the paperwork.Now imagine what a contractor's MSDS might look like.

It has a good goal which is to require employers to provide proper safety gear/training it is just how they go about it and I am not sure how effective they really are a spotting real violators.I knew a guy that maintained all manner of factory machinery according to him most places knew when OSHA was coming and made things look proper for the visit.

In the USAF you had to always put your seat belt on even for the most minor vehicle movement say backing a truck 3 feet backwards.That to me is just over the top and I have always been a habitual belt user.I wear anytime I am on a roadway but for simply a back up or moving a parking spot when the speed is not going to exceed 5mph it is just silly.

You're not exactly speaking from a position of neutrality here though, are you? Obama may have failed to shut down Guantanamo, but who set it up in the first place? Who brought in the PATRIOT act? Who killed Kamal Derwish? Who declared war on Iraq?
You see, you can google for any kind of attack ammunition on both sides of the political spectrum in America, and that's a good part of what has gone wrong with the American system. Both sides are shouting at each other so loudly that neither can actually hear what each other are saying, nor do they have any interest, it's like the middle part of World War One, with neither side making much progress and everything in the middle being turned into a morass.

But don't you think that rather than weeding out the pseudo liberal neocons you should be looking to create a balanced party that appeals to a broader voting base and gives a more stable government when elected? Right now in America there are vast swathes of middle ground that have been left unclaimed, whoever moves to take it first could well win the next election. Furthermore you might want to take a look at the definition of 'neocon' because I'm not sure you're using it in the context that you are wishing to use it in, there's not a great deal that is liberal about a neocon.


Personally, I think what sets the past two US governments (Bush and Obama) aside from other US governments before them has been one thing, the internet.
I firmly and fully believe that if we had had the internet in the days of Roosevelt we would be having exactly the same conversation. The explosion of opinions that the internet has created has served to polarise the country. Mud-raking, soundbites and propaganda which is easily assembled and posted in a chain email has taken precedence over actions and speeches.

In short, the American governmental system was designed and implemented over two hundred years ago, it has had to change over the years to accommodate new media and the fact that the world has become a smaller place with each passing decade, and now the world has caught up to and surpassed the system, the system cannot handle it, and it has broken down. It is seemingly now a rare thing to find a neutral ground in America, because to be a neutral ground seems to be unacceptable. If you don't support the Republican viewpoint then you must be a Democrat, if you don't support the Democratic viewpoint then you must be a Republican.

That's not a good situation for any nation to be in. :hmmm: