Reply With Quote
So spurraider....
Is there any part of the shutdown that affects you?
Anyone you know?
alright so i'm no expert, but this is what i understand about the situation...
republicans hate obamacare. obamacare passed and was signed into law.
the supreme court said the law is within cons utional limits
i'm not a fan of obamacare either, but if it passed, it passed. thats how the system works.
since obamacare is signed into law, it shall be funded.
republicans refuse to pass a budget that funds obamacare, which is required to be funded since it has been signed into law
republicans refuse to vote/pass a budget unless obamacare is repealed/amended
there is no requirement to amend/repeal obamacare
government gets shut down as there is no movement on either side. the republicans refuse to pass a budget which NEEDS to be passed, and the democrats refuse to budge on a bill that has already been passed and thus does not (by law) require reform/repeal
am i factually incorrect or did i miss anything? legitimate question i wana make sure im all caught up here
So spurraider....
Is there any part of the shutdown that affects you?
Anyone you know?
hmm, that appears to be irrelevant to my question though. i don't want to comment on the shutdown if i'm not fully informed on the situation. was everything i said factually correct or did i miss anything? i think once i get a better understanding of the situation i'll be in a better place to comment on it
I disagree with what you said. I can't disagree with it without reviewing and citing references, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong as well.
Remember how the democrats funded the viet-Nam war, until Nixon had a chance of winning it? They defended the war, and that's why we pulled out. It is one thing not to implement funding of something not in progress yet, but really bad to defund something in progress.
Most the voters do not want Obamacare. It is already costing jobs, and causing employees to get reduced hours, because it is costly if an employer falls in within certain criteria.
Besides. Weren't we told that Obamacare wouldn't cost the tax payers anything? Why does congress need to fund it, or was that another lie from the left?
It's another lie from you.
lol barrycades
saying "they claimed it wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything" is fallacious.
look, if the voters felt so strongly about obamacare, they should have voted for people that would repeal it. instead, you have a majority of democrats in the senate and democrat in the oval office.
dude, this is completely regardless of whether or not we like obamacare. the voters elect these guys. they passed the law, president signed it. now the guys that lost are being sore losers even though the vote went through fairly in the system devised by the founding fathers, and now are being too stubborn to admit they lost a vote and are holding the government hostage.
i repeat, this is regardless of whether or not we like obamacare. i'm not a fan of the bill by any stretch. but if we want it out, we just vote in congressmen/presidents that will repeal it. clearly, that didn't happen. neal with it
So, are we getting a tax refund for the time this been shutdown?
From your lips to the IRS' ears.
Tactic I heard on NPR
Repugs are now saying Boner "VOWS" not to cause a default on the debt, if only the Dems would cave on ACA.
They must have heard that the Dems know caving in on a biggie like ACA will encourage the Repugs to do it again and again. dem Dems be pretty smart.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-03-2013 at 06:57 PM.
i'm starting to think the Republican party doesn't understand the concept of majority vote in congress
GOP
What a in bunch of babies
Well, that is where it is, isn't it? Doesn't it seem that the Tea Party Republicans in Congress actually want to say "I will let Dep't. X get funded, but I won't let Dept. Y get funded unless I get my way"?
Doesn't that logic lead to the conclusion that they do not accept the results of democratic elections?
Doesn't that logic lead to the conclusion that they believe that ONLY they should determine every single part of the entire government of the U.S.?
Is that level of arrogance unprecedented?
If the Dems give in, what would stop them in the future if they are in the minority of holding the government hostage to something that they want, like increased funding for EPA emissions testing or something, or for blocking the enactment of something that the Republicans want, like lowering corporate tax rates?
Why don't the Tea Partiers understand that this is not a way to GOVERN in a republic whose government is elected by majority vote?
pure WC comedy!
"Remember how the democrats funded the viet-Nam war, until Nixon had a chance of winning it?"
Democrat LBJ's Paris peace talks were subverted by the Nixon Repug campaign in the '68 election. Nixon told the VN that they would get a better deal from him than from LBJ. Peace talks collapsed. Nixon and the military, aka "better deal", fought on, AND LOST that war 1975.
AS MIDNIGHT on September 30th approached, everybody on Capitol Hill blamed everybody else for the imminent shutdown of America’s government. To a wondering world, the recriminations missed the point. When you are brawling on the edge of a cliff, the big question is not “Who is right?”, but “What the are you doing on the edge of a cliff?”
The shutdown itself is tiresome but bearable. The security services will remain on duty, pensioners will still receive their cheques and the astronauts on the International Space Station will still be able to breathe. Some 800,000 non-essential staff at federal agencies (out of 2.8m) are being sent home, while another 1.3m are being asked to toil on without pay (see article). Non-urgent tasks will be shelved until a deal is reached and the money starts to flow again. If that happens quickly, the economic damage will be modest: perhaps 0.1-0.2% off the fourth-quarter growth rate for every week the government is closed. The trouble is, the shutdown is a symptom of a deeper problem: the federal lawmaking process is so polarised that it has become paralysed. And if the two parties cannot bridge their differences by around October 17th, disaster looms.
Battles over spending are nothing unusual—indeed, Congress has not passed a proper budget on time since 1997. But this battle represents something new. House Republicans are blocking the budget not because they object to its contents, but because they object to something else entirely: Barack Obama’s health-care reform, a big part of which started to operate this week (see article). Their original demand was to strip all funding from Obamacare. In other words, they wanted Democrats to agree to kill their own president’s biggest achievement. That was never going to happen. As the deadline for a budget deal approached, Republicans scaled back their demands. Instead of defunding Obamacare, they said that its mandate for individuals to buy health insurance (or pay a fine) should be delayed for a year.
The bane of budgetary brinkmanship
That may sound more reasonable, but it is not so, for two reasons. First, delaying the mandate could wreck the whole reform. Obamacare sits on two pillars. Everyone is obliged to have insurance, and insurance firms are barred from charging people more because they are already ill. If only the second rule applies, the sick will rush to buy insurance but the healthy will wait until they fall ill before doing so. Insurers will have to raise premiums or go bust, making coverage unaffordable without vast subsidies. Obamacare will enter a death spiral and possibly collapse. For some Republicans, that is the goal.
The second reason is that Republicans are setting a precedent which, if followed, would make America ungovernable. Voters have seen fit to give their party control of one arm of government—the House of Representatives—while handing the Democrats the White House and the Senate. If a party with such a modest electoral mandate threatens to shut down government unless the other side repeals a law it does not like, apparently settled legislation will always be vulnerable to repeal by the minority. Washington will be permanently paralysed and America condemned to chronic uncertainty.
It gets worse. Later this month the federal government will reach its legal borrowing limit, known as the “debt ceiling”. Unless Congress raises that ceiling, Uncle Sam will soon be unable to pay all his bills. In other words, unless the two parties can work together, America will have to choose which of its obligations not to honour. It could slash spending so deeply that it causes a recession. Or it could default on its debts, which would be even worse, and unimaginably more harmful than a mere government shutdown. No one in Washington is that crazy, surely?
Step back from the edge
America enjoys the “exorbitant privilege” of printing the world’s reserve currency. Its government debt is considered a safe haven, which is why Uncle Sam can borrow so much, so cheaply. America will not lose these advantages overnight. But anything that undermines its creditworthiness—as the farce in Washington surely does—risks causing untold damage in the future. It is not just that America would have to pay more to borrow. The repercussions of an American default would be both global and unpredictable.
It would threaten financial markets. Since American Treasuries are very liquid and safe, they are widely used as collateral. They are more than 30% of the collateral that financial ins utions such as investment banks use to borrow in the $2 trillion “tri-party repo” market, a source of overnight funding. A default could trigger demands by lenders for more or different collateral; that might cause a financial heart attack like the one prompted by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. In short, even if Obamacare were as bad as tea-party types say it is (see Lexington), it would still be reckless to use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip to repeal it, as some Republicans suggest.
What can be done? In the short term, House Republicans need to get their priorities straight. They should pass a clean budget resolution without trying to refight old battles over Obamacare. They should also vote to raise the debt ceiling (or better yet, abolish it). If Obamacare really does turn out to be a flop and Republicans win the presidency and the Senate in 2016, they can repeal it through the normal legislative process.
In the longer term, America needs to tackle polarisation. The problem is especially acute in the House, because many states let politicians draw their own electoral maps. Unsurprisingly, they tend to draw ultra-safe districts for themselves. This means that a typical congressman has no fear of losing a general election but is terrified of a primary challenge. Many therefore pander to extremists on their own side rather than forging sensible centrist deals with the other. This is no way to run a country. Electoral reforms, such as letting independent commissions draw district boundaries, would not suddenly make America governable, but they would help. It is time for less cliff-hanging, and more common sense.
http://www.economist.com/news/leader...ay-run-country
I agree. I'm not registered with either party. I'm not a fan of most of Obama's policy, and quite frankly not sure why people were so eager to reelect him. But the demeanor the TOSB GOP is showing is straight up embarrassing. Like when Cruz gave a dramatic reading of Green Eggs and Ham
They really are a ing embarrassment and a huge disservice to actual conservatives, tbh....
What a in bunch of babies
Excellent article. Thank you for finding and posting. Very clear exposition of what is happening and the real scale of it.
"This is no way to run a country"
the Repugs and tea baggers AREN'T INTERESTED in running the country, in governance. They want to destroy govt, as St Ronnie said "government is the problem". And they'll never give up their power to gerrymander which gerrymander gives them.
They don't want to destroy government. they want to reduce the size of it.
Any predictions on when this ends? Will it be longer than the one back in the day?
The various agencies that have been talked about to be killed
SEC
FDA
EPA
OSHA
NASA
FDA
IRS
NOAA
Education
all regulations
USPS
public education
The right wingers want govt removed, effectively killed, as a countervailing power United Corporations of America, the financial sector, the 1%. For them govt has no role to play. The country is be controlled only by the capitalists, mega-corporations, 1%, financial sector. That's the fundamental reason the those groups finance the extreme tea baggin frauds, libertarians.
Small govt means no govt (aka killed) that could challenge the power of those groups.
TPP is effectively a corporate/capitalist coup d'etat where corporations are granted powers that supercedes any govt that signs on to TPP, where govt laws like regulation of environment, health, employee/patient safety, etc cannot impinge on corporate activity.
The Shutdown in 10 Infuriating Sentences
1 Democrats have already agreed to fund the government at Republican levels.
2 Despite what you might have heard, there have only been two serious government shutdowns in recent history, and both were the result of Republican ultimatums.
3 Democrats in the Senate have been begging the House to negotiate over the budget for the past six months, but Republicans have refused.
4 That's because Republicans wanted to wait until they had either a government shutdown or a debt ceiling breach as leverage, something they've been very clear about all along.
5 Republicans keep talking about compromise, but they've offered nothing in return for agreeing to their demands—except to keep the government intact if they get their way.
6 The public is very strongly opposed to using a government shutdown to stop Obamacare.
7 Contrary to Republican claims, the deficit is not increasing—it peaked in 2009 and has been dropping ever since, declining by $200 billion last year with another $450 billion drop projected this year.
( "OUT OF CONTROL GOVT SPENDING?" just another huge REPUG lie to rouse you right-wing rabble
8 A long government shutdown is likely to seriously hurt economic growth, with a monthlong shutdown projected to slash GDP in the fourth quarter by 1 percentage point and reduce employment by over a million jobs.
9 No, Democrats have not used debt ceiling hostage taking in the past to force presidents to accept their political agenda.
10 This whole dispute is about the Republican Party fighting to make sure the working poor don't have access to affordable health care. (iow, the Repugs and their paymasters want to deny govt any beneficial role in society, because for them EVERYTHING must be provided by the for-profit "free market" and of course at wealth-suckingly high prices)
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...ling-explained
Maddow had a great destruction of Newt Gingrich as REPUG anarchist govt shutdowner. He said he said he shut down the govt because, on the Presidential plane trip to Rabin's funeral in Israel, he wasn't invited by Clinton to the front of plane and then made to exit by the rear door, while Clinton, Carter, Reagan exited by the front door.
And now we hear one Repug (and of course he took it back), and speaking probably for many Repugs, that Repugs, having lost so far and going to lose the shutdown standoff, must get something back from the Dems, anything, so Repugs can save face.
iow, they don't give flying about governing or ACA, now or ever, it's all an adolescent, schoolyard power game by old rich white guys about not letting that n!gg@ beat them up and walk away unscathed.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-04-2013 at 06:25 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
