The top 5 reasons the Republicans want to shut down the government

Pages

Great article on Salon today outlining why the House Republicans are threatening to shut down the government next week. The article lists what budget demands are considered so important that the House has no choice but to call for a shut-down.

Hint - these demands have little to do with actually cutting the deficit.

The Republicans want to end healthcare reform (without coming up with other solutions), de-fund planned parenthood, roll back EPA standards, cut funding for arts/public broadcasting, and even cut back on consumer protections. I'm really amazed at how out-of-touch the Republicans are with mainstream Americans. Yes, most of us want cutbacks in spending. But I can't see how most people want laxer environmental regulations, more teenage kids having babies out of wedlock, or want Sesame Street and This American Life to get kicked off the air. About the only issue that I support of this agenda is de-funding Obama's czar cabinet, which IMHO has grown out-of-control.

Here's the article:

http://www.salon.com/news/budget_sho...

jdzappa wrote:

About the only issue that I support of this agenda is de-funding Obama's czar cabinet, which IMHO has grown out-of-control.

It's good to know they were totally cool with the 28 "czars" Bush appointed that weren't confirmed by the Senate. And that $1.5 million in savings? That's sadly equal to one minute of spending in Afghanistan.

OG_slinger wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

About the only issue that I support of this agenda is de-funding Obama's czar cabinet, which IMHO has grown out-of-control.

It's good to know they were totally cool with the 28 "czars" Bush appointed that weren't confirmed by the Senate. And that $1.5 million in savings? That's sadly equal to one minute of spending in Afghanistan.

Not going to jump into this, other than to point out we spent $8 million replacing corroded latrines on military transport aircraft. In other words, the Pentagon literally pisses away far more than $1.5 million.

This is the best quote, ever. In regards to Planned Parenthood (one of the 5 items mentioned in the article) -

Rep. Pence: "It's morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use it to fund organizations that provide and promote abortion -- like Planned Parenthood of America."

That's... amazing. So when are we ending the war that millions of anti-war Americans have to fund through taxation? I'm not usually a fan of "well if you are doing this, THEN YOU HAVE TO DO THAT, TOO" sorts of arguments, but that line of logic is just so uproariously bad.

OG_slinger wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

About the only issue that I support of this agenda is de-funding Obama's czar cabinet, which IMHO has grown out-of-control.

It's good to know they were totally cool with the 28 "czars" Bush appointed that weren't confirmed by the Senate. And that $1.5 million in savings? That's sadly equal to one minute of spending in Afghanistan.

LOL I didn't read that close enough. I thought they were trying to scrap most of the czar positions, which probably wouldn't be a bad thing since czars are unelected officials with massive power and little to no oversight by anyone except the president.

I, for one, am shocked, shocked to hear that all this budget talk was, in fact, a cynical gambit of political theater!

I'm asking this question in all seriousness, why do Republican's seem to not care about the environment? They do understand we only get one chance to destroy this planet right? It baffles me.........

Bear wrote:

I'm asking this question in all seriousness, why do Republican's seem to not care about the environment? They do understand we only get one chance to destroy this planet right? It baffles me.........

They don't let the environment get in the way of the almighty dollar.

Dezlen wrote:
Bear wrote:

I'm asking this question in all seriousness, why do Republican's seem to not care about the environment? They do understand we only get one chance to destroy this planet right? It baffles me.........

They don't let the environment get in the way of the almighty dollar.

I really like trotting out the "questionable science" bullsh*t. Some of them truly live in a conservative fantasy world. I am ready for them to close the Smithsonian because it has a history longer than 6,000 years.

Bear wrote:

I'm asking this question in all seriousness, why do Republican's seem to not care about the environment? They do understand we only get one chance to destroy this planet right? It baffles me.........

The less companies spend on hippy crap like recycling and filtering coal ash from the sky, the bigger the contribution is for the next election cycle and the cushier the "consulting" job salary is after retirement/defeat.

Because God made man warden of the Earth, and God wouldn't do that unless the Earth was indestructible. I wish that was a joke...

And because in a few years or so, God's taking all the good people up to heaven and only the ungodly heathens will be left on this hellhole.

gewy wrote:

And because in a few years or so, God's taking all the good people up to heaven and only the ungodly heathens will be left on this hellhole.

20% of US Christians think the end times will happen in their lifetime and it's pretty safe bet they aren't going to spend their last years voting Democratic.

You know, you'd think that during the last times on Earth, they'd be trying the hardest to live up to the teachings of Jesus.

Remember: a lot of them believe that the teachings of Jesus sum up to "It doesn't matter what you do in life, you will be saved if and only if you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior." (Unless you are an icky gay, in which case bugger off.)

I think there is a lot of that kind of deliberate ignorance and selective religious magical thinking involved, but I think that is not so much the reason so much as the after the fact justification. I think the more logical explanation is that, for some, their objection to protections for the environment are purely mercenary (i.e.: there is too much money in doing things the wrong way and frankly, charity begins at home. In this case, it means giving your spoiled teenage kid a luxury SUV rather than giving Third World peasants groundwater safe from mercury.). For others, it is simply the false pride some feel for being contrarian. In the absence of any meaningful definition of "freedom", many Americans seem to think that the word means the right to define the truth as falsehood and falsehood as truth. As a result, they view denial of science as some sort of uniquely American virtue. As much as I'd like to blame religion for all of it, I think the more rational explanation is that we are just peopled with some seriously spoiled, asinine people.

Malor wrote:

You know, you'd think that during the last times on Earth, they'd be trying the hardest to live up to the teachings of Jesus.

Their skulls would crack open if they realized how much of a socialist Jesus was!

Bear wrote:
Malor wrote:

You know, you'd think that during the last times on Earth, they'd be trying the hardest to live up to the teachings of Jesus.

Their skulls would crack open if they realized how much of a socialist Jesus was! :)

You just need to rewrite the Bible a bit to make it more closely conform to your expectations.

Bear wrote:
Malor wrote:

You know, you'd think that during the last times on Earth, they'd be trying the hardest to live up to the teachings of Jesus.

Their skulls would crack open if they realized how much of a socialist Jesus was! :)

I think feeding and clothing the poor got lost after they read Matthew 2:11 and heard the word gold was in the bible in a positive context.

**Edit- I remember a die hard conservative once told me that Jesus wasn't a socialist because he didn't say we should be forced to give money to the government to help the poor and charities out, and Jesus was only talking about private donations as good. Sometimes it baffles me how many mental loops people jump to make their Political/Social/Religious/Scientific views match.

Edit- I remember a die hard conservative once told me that Jesus wasn't a socialist because he didn't say we should be forced to give money to the government to help the poor and charities out

Well, he has a point. Is forced charity even charity?

Malor wrote:
Edit- I remember a die hard conservative once told me that Jesus wasn't a socialist because he didn't say we should be forced to give money to the government to help the poor and charities out

Well, he has a point. Is forced charity even charity?

I think it skips the question. Jesus said rich people are going to hell. All of them. that's pretty hard to reconcile while living in one of the richest countries ever.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Bear wrote:
Malor wrote:

You know, you'd think that during the last times on Earth, they'd be trying the hardest to live up to the teachings of Jesus.

Their skulls would crack open if they realized how much of a socialist Jesus was! :)

You just need to rewrite the Bible a bit to make it more closely conform to your expectations.

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /Conservative_Bible_Project on this server.

*gasp* They know!

Malor wrote:
Edit- I remember a die hard conservative once told me that Jesus wasn't a socialist because he didn't say we should be forced to give money to the government to help the poor and charities out

Well, he has a point. Is forced charity even charity?

It may not be "charity", but it is helping out the poor and destitute. I'm pretty sure that would be approved by Jesus. After all Jesus said to give money to the government that is required. If anything, Jesus would approve of a government that is doing good works for the lowly of society.

Malor wrote:
Edit- I remember a die hard conservative once told me that Jesus wasn't a socialist because he didn't say we should be forced to give money to the government to help the poor and charities out

Well, he has a point. Is forced charity even charity?

Maybe we should ask Ananaias and Sapphira.

Here is the Brick Testament version.

In short, taxes are tyranny, but if you don't give your very last penny to the church, they'll brain you with the Holy Spirit and bury you in the backyard.

Malor wrote:
Edit- I remember a die hard conservative once told me that Jesus wasn't a socialist because he didn't say we should be forced to give money to the government to help the poor and charities out

Well, he has a point. Is forced charity even charity?

Jesus also said “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”, which means "Pay your f*cking taxes."

Oreo_Speedwagon wrote:
Malor wrote:
Edit- I remember a die hard conservative once told me that Jesus wasn't a socialist because he didn't say we should be forced to give money to the government to help the poor and charities out

Well, he has a point. Is forced charity even charity?

Jesus also said “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”, which means "Pay your f*cking taxes."

Right because Jesus understood where money came from. The coins did not have the face of the holder on it but rather who he mentioned, Caesar.

Wha...? What could it matter where the money came from, Goman? It's generally held that Jesus here is saying "Don't try to overthrow your government just because it's not of God; be a good citizen and don't give them cause to trample you." Which is quite reasonable given the recent history of the area where he grew up...

I don't think Jesus was worried about where the money came from, but rather where the taxes went.

Robear wrote:

Wha...? What could it matter where the money came from, Goman? It's generally held that Jesus here is saying "Don't try to overthrow your government just because it's not of God; be a good citizen and don't give them cause to trample you." Which is quite reasonable given the recent history of the area where he grew up...

I don't think Jesus was worried about where the money came from, but rather where the taxes went.

Because it would have been hypocritical to use the Roman coins as exchange but not to pay taxes to those that coined them. Jesus knew this and thus said what he said.

Here from wikipedia...

"Some read the phrase “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” as unambiguous at least to the extent that it commands people to respect state authority and to pay the taxes it demands of them. Paul the Apostle also states in Romans 13 that Christians are obliged to obey all earthly authorities, stating that as they were introduced by God, disobedience to them equates to disobedience to God.

In this interpretation, Jesus asked his interrogators to produce a coin in order to demonstrate to them that by using his coinage they had already admitted the de facto rule of the emperor, and that therefore they should submit to that rule."

Not only this but he asked the questioners to look at the coin before he said this famous phrase.

OK, guess I will jump in.

Minor point here: Jesus isn't a member of the US government.

Back to the matter at hand, if we're all right with moving away from God's opinion of the US budget, this isn't a matter of the Republicans wanting to shut down the government, it's a matter of politicians being removed from the consequences of their actions. Our government is full of multi-millionaires. Why should they care about balancing the budget? Why should they care about healthcare, and the mortgage crisis? They can hire any doctor in the world out of pocket. They can take a vacation wherever they please and if they like the place they can pay cash for a house there. A house that's going to be way, way nicer than most Americans will ever even get to visit.

Democrats would do the same thing because all this fight is, is a way to score points and stay in office. They don't rely on any of these programs. If they even use any of them it's to save a few bucks, and if the programs went away they'd shrug and take option B. It doesn't even occur to them that for some people, defunding a public assistance program doesn't just set them back a few dollars. It can put people in a position where, by no fault of their own, they legitimately cannot afford something they need. Not, "it would screw up their budget" but, "they could sell everything they own and go as far into debt as possible and it still wouldn't be enough." There is no option B. You don't need a top 5 reasons, all you need is the top 1: because it has no impact on their personal lives whatsoever.

I know this all sounds insanely populist and I'm not trying to be anti-elitist or anything. A smart, rich guy can do this just as easily as "one of us." So far, they haven't, or at least not enough of them have. This is one of the cases where I'd like a politician with whom I'd like to have a beer. That politician at least cares how much beer costs. Of course we've never heard of that politician before. He lacks the money for the advertising campaign, or is too smart to get into politics in the first place. The best we have are people who are willing to pretend to be that guy, and spend more money than you or I are worth to make sure everyone knows it.

I don't know if you're aware LobsterMonster, but Congressmen aren't all millionaires. Look at Sean Duffy. He's just barely getting by! That man is living $174,000 paycheck to $174,000 paycheck!

the onion wrote:

GOP Completely Fixes Economy By Canceling Funding For NPR

April 5, 2011 | ISSUE 47•14
Article Tools

WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S. economy. "Since eliminating federal spending for NPR, America's economic outlook is brighter than it's been in decades, with manufacturing on the rise and† millions of jobs once sent overseas now returning to our shores," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), adding that by eliminating funds for NPR, the deficit has been slashed by 0.000004 percent and a newly thriving middle class once again has cause to believe in the American dream. "Pulling funding for Car Talk and Planet Money alone has created 4.2 million jobs and generated a $2 trillion budget surplus." Republicans announced Thursday they will now turn their attention to cutting the National Park Service, a move that should ensure Social Security's solvency for the next 350 years.

Pages