3 of 5
3
John Boehner: Worst Speaker of the House ever, so far
Posted: 05 October 2013 01:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 05 October 2013 12:42 AM

What twisted logic is this?

If you think it’s twisted don’t expect me to explain why it’s twisted.  That’s up to you.  wink

Are you saying that a small minority in congress can shut down the entire government for 300,000,000 people, because they do not like ONE law of their own proposed budget which the dems agreed to.

That wasn’t my main point, but yes, that’s part of Congress’ role.  “Power of the purse,” remember?  American Gov’t 101.

If congress would vote on this today the current budget would pass with a bi-partisan majority. In any case they cannot declare the old budget under which the current government has functioned with positive results, null and void. IMO that is sedition!

We don’t really have a budget.  All we have is a continuing resolution.  But the point isn’t that Congress is declaring old legislation null and void, but that it is declining to fund it.  That’s always been the case, for example, with wars.  Congress can undercut its own past declaration of war by declining to fund a war effort.  Are you going to charge the House with sedition based on your opinion or do you plan to have some legal basis for it?

The very people who complain about the government ARE part of the government.

There’s a sentence ripe with potential for a fallacy of equivocation!  wink

In an orderly functioning government, there are timeframes of getting things done, that need to be done.  There is a procedure of back and forth and at the end a vote is taken, at which time the Bill becomes Law and is included in the budget as a necessary expense.

Okay, then why does the administration get to decide not to enforce immigration by deporting those who illegally immigrate?  Oh, you say they get to prioritize?  But Congress can’t do that wrt the budget?

Are you serious?

Comes 30 or 40 Radical representatives who somehow prevent the leadership of one of the congressional parties, to follow this orderly process and create chaos in the governance of a nation of 300,000,000 people and now have expanded the problem to include the existing current budget under which the government was functional for years with positive impact on the Economy.

And that’s a sentence pregnant with assumptions, though it doesn’t seem to really address any point but rather to serve as a method for venting.

Laws can only be changed or defunded by congressional procedure. Not by defunding the entire government at budget time.

So Write4U has declared.  So let it be.  Or something.

I would propose that if the government is shut down Congress is defunded by default and citizens would no longer be required to pay any taxes.  This of course is anarchy and does not belong in a civilized country that considers itself a shining light of democracy.

Maybe you should seize power and put your policies into effect.  Until then, we’re stuck with standard congressional procedure, of which this is a part.  James Madison countenanced situations like this one.

The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse — that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

You may not like this reality, Write4U, but the ACA is an unpopular law.  The House has asked for a 1-year delay for the individual mandate as a condition for funding the rest of the government, after the administration (on what legal grounds?) declared a 1-year delay for the employer mandate.  Deals like this on appropriations are nothing new.

http://hnn.us/article/153473

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 01:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6135
Joined  2009-02-26

Bryan,
That wasn’t my main point, but yes, that’s part of Congress’ role.  “Power of the purse,” remember?  American Gov’t 101.

Yes, if by majority, not a small minority.

And all this is being debated now?
I thought they had some 18 months of debate available and had come to agreement, challenged and found to be constitutional. I would agree with you if a majority were opposed to the budget, but a majority would vote affirmative.  This is tyranny of the few using strong arm extortion tactics with DIRE adverse results for the population.

I thought we had learned from Darwin that cooperative efforts are almost always beneficial to survival. Unless one is a proponent of natural individual selection, it is best to keep society orderly, don’t you agree?  The current situation cannot bring positive results. It is detrimental to the country in many ways. It is poor governance by these few people who seek to control governance of the entire country, without knowing the public needs of 300,000,000 people and a war and unemployment.
It is ludicrous.

And of course I am voicing my opinion. Based only on my personal views on humanitarian principles and behavior, not if a certain legislative action is permissible under law at a time when the country is in recovery. It reminds me of the movie, Misery.

[ Edited: 05 October 2013 01:53 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 05:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 05 October 2013 12:20 AM

VYAZMA pretty much makes your point for you, Rocinante.

No.  No.  Obama and Reid wanted a Clean Budget Bill.
That’s all! They didn’t want the govt. shutdown.
Boehner could have run a straight up or down vote with his House and the clean CR would have passed.
The Senate would have passed it and Obama would have signed it.
That simple.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 05:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 05 October 2013 01:11 AM

You may not like this reality, Write4U, but the ACA is an unpopular law.  The House has asked for a 1-year delay for the individual mandate as a condition for funding the rest of the government, after the administration (on what legal grounds?) declared a 1-year delay for the employer mandate.  Deals like this on appropriations are nothing new.

 

No no.  It’s a misunderstood law.  After years of propaganda by anti-Obama Care activists and special interests some people don’t understand the ACA.
Just like when Social Security and Medicare started out.
People are already reaping the benefits of the ACA.
In time we will raise revenues through better taxation and everything will be running smoothly.
We just have to get the country’s spending priorities straight. Obviously healthcare is a big priority.  The ACA finally makes it one.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 06:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6135
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 05 October 2013 01:11 AM
Write4U - 05 October 2013 12:42 AM

You may not like this reality, Write4U, but the ACA is an unpopular law.  The House has asked for a 1-year delay for the individual mandate as a condition for funding the rest of the government, after the administration (on what legal grounds?) declared a 1-year delay for the employer mandate.  Deals like this on appropriations are nothing new. http://hnn.us/article/153473

Yes which is directly related to the marginal 2% of borderline businesses to allow them to continue providing jobs in a growing economy. And it is a budget which was presented by the republican party. If you want it debated further, pass a CR and allow to government to function, while debating the issues. You don’t burn your car cause it has a flat tire and you have spare in your trunk that can get you to the shop where they can fix the problem.

You seem to forget that the intent of the ACA Law is to reduce spending on healthcare while providing cheaper more efficient health care coverage for all in a free market competitive system. It is already possible to get some basic medical care coverage for $50 - $60 p/mo if you are eligible for direct government assistance. The entire bill is designed to save costs on those who cannot afford current healthcare premiums and bring down the deficit spending at the same time. It is an economic stimulus package. A healthier well educated work force produces better quality goods. This last minute insistence by Republicans of renegotiation their own budget, is clearly obstructionist and harmful to the welfare of the nation, IOW sedition (if not in law, it is in spirit). The Republicans will not take a yes for an answer. This crisis is wholly their doing and hopefully their undoing.

To vote against this bill is active obstruction, legal or not. The key here is that nothing gets accomplished, because the democarts have already said yes to the Republican budget numbers. But, apparently they feel they can extort a few more dollars at the last possible moment by shutting down the entire government, regardless (perhaps purposefully) of the costs of keeping public services closed.

Obama is not to blame in this disaster.
here are some facts.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/economy/?page=2 

This well funded minority acting like a chid stomping his foot on the ground for another cookie and refusing to go to school, because he did not get his cookie, even tough everyone agreed on 1 cookie each.

[ Edited: 05 October 2013 06:57 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 09:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 05 October 2013 01:48 AM

Bryan,
That wasn’t my main point, but yes, that’s part of Congress’ role.  “Power of the purse,” remember?  American Gov’t 101.

Yes, if by majority, not a small minority.

Congress, pertaining to itself, sets its own rules.  Is the minority running afoul of those rules somehow?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 05 October 2013 06:51 AM

Yes which is directly related to the marginal 2% of borderline businesses to allow them to continue providing jobs in a growing economy. And it is a budget which was presented by the republican party. If you want it debated further, pass a CR and allow to government to function, while debating the issues. You don’t burn your car cause it has a flat tire and you have spare in your trunk that can get you to the shop where they can fix the problem.

I’m not sure the analogy fits.  The “government shutdown” is obviously partial, though I’d agree that it’s damaging not to increase the debt limit if by necessity the defaults on or shuffles payments to the extent that it directly hurts the U.S. credit rating.  On the other hand, part of the rationale for opposing raising the credit rating is the desire to address the long-term drivers of the deficit.  Which serves as a wonderful segue to your next point ...

You seem to forget that the intent of the ACA Law is to reduce spending on healthcare while providing cheaper more efficient health care coverage for all in a free market competitive system.

The ACA does not reduce spending on healthcare, unless we count the soft cap on Medicare spending (evil when Ryan proposed it, IIRC).  The accounting on the ACA is smoke and mirrors throughout.  It costs over $1 trillion.  Adding $1 trillion in new costs does not reduce spending on healthcare.  The bill hides that truth from people by claiming an overall reduction to the deficit.  How do they pull that off?  With new taxes.  And the real hidden trick comes via the combined employer and employee mandates.  The government, albeit minus any real teeth (I predict those will grow in later, either that or a push for single-payer) requires everyone to buy insurance.  This is akin to a tax.  This is the government, not individuals, deciding on the necessity of something and then, instead of spending the money itself, requiring individuals to spend money on it.

The “free market competitive system.”  Well, kinda sorta.  It’s kind of like having a Harrison Bergeron style race where the contestants have a certain type of shoe they have to wear, an intricate set of steps they have to follow, and anti-aerodynamic accoutrements they have to wear.  After the strict government regulations are all in place and the gun sounds, then it’s “free market” competition.  But it’s not really a free market.  It’s a market more strictly regulated than ever before (speaking of the U.S.).

It is already possible to get some basic medical care coverage for $50 - $60 p/mo if you are eligible for direct government assistance.

Isn’t Medicaid even less than that?

But let’s be careful not to confuse the cost to the consumer with the overall cost.  The government assistance comes from taxation.  Somebody’s got to pay for it.  The cost of health care nationally will go up, not down.  Is that what President Obama sold us from the stump?

The entire bill is designed to save costs on those who cannot afford current healthcare premiums and bring down the deficit spending at the same time.

It increases spending, but brings down the deficit with counterbalancing taxes.  Put those taxes into effect (I don’t recommend it, of course—they’re mostly dumb like the tax on medical devices) and the deficit comes down that much faster, doesn’t it?  Smoke, mirrors.

It is an economic stimulus package.

It’s a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

It’s not an economic stimulus package.  Will it grow jobs in the health care sector?  Probably, and mostly lower-paying jobs while it helps lop the top off the higher paying medical jobs (doctors will earn less).  The cost in jobs elsewhere probably more than make up for it.  The MLR limits are costing people in the insurance industry (brokers) money and jobs.  They’re being replaced with low-cost government “navigators.”  The complexity of the law is harming economic growth.

A healthier well educated work force produces better quality goods.

That’s assuming they have jobs, of course.  A healthier well educated work force without jobs achieves higher scores while gaming.

This last minute insistence by Republicans of renegotiation their own budget, is clearly obstructionist and harmful to the welfare of the nation, IOW sedition (if not in law, it is in spirit). The Republicans will not take a yes for an answer. This crisis is wholly their doing and hopefully their undoing.

To vote against this bill is active obstruction, legal or not. The key here is that nothing gets accomplished, because the democarts have already said yes to the Republican budget numbers. But, apparently they feel they can extort a few more dollars at the last possible moment by shutting down the entire government, regardless (perhaps purposefully) of the costs of keeping public services closed.

Obama is not to blame in this disaster.

Obviously Obama shares blame for the shutdown, to the tune of whatever hostages for which he refuses to accept release. 

here are some facts.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/economy/?page=2 

Rachel Maddow’s right about PolitiFact.  It doesn’t deserve to have the word “fact” in its name.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Who cares what it costs?  Raise my taxes!  I’m all for it.
Costs! Costs! Costs!
The old constipated rhetoric of the conservative “SHUT THE LIGHTS OFF” crowd.
Obamacare(ACA) is the law!  The revenue streams will adjust accordingly! LOL
And yes, what a wonderfully slippery slope!
LOL  A ha ha ha ha {diabolical laughter}
I’m happy to pay more taxes.  What’s an increase?  An extra $20-$50 bucks out of my pay? Gladly!
Of course I give to charity too. I don’t mind sharing for the common good.
Slippery slope Bryan!  Slippery slope! LOL

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I can’t help but smile at the clever technique Republicans have been using in regard to negotiation.  The technique is known as nibbling or the “baloney game”.  It goes this way.  Two parties enter into negotiation.  One party gives some concessions and the negotiations are supposedly accepted and closed.  Then the second party, who has nibbled or taken the baloney slices, i.e., the concessions, wants to reopen the negotiations but with those as the new starting point.  The proper defense, which the Democrats should do, is to remind everyone of those consessions and shift the negotiations to getting those back before continuing with the new items.

The Democrats, gave in badly by allowing the budget to be reduced, and it was accepted.  Now the Republicans are asking for more, major reductions.  The Democrats gave in and allowed the original Affordable Health Care bill to be weakened by taking out a number of valuable provisions in order to get the Republicans to accept it.  Now, the Republicans are back demanding further, major concessions.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Occam. - 05 October 2013 12:05 PM

I can’t help but smile at the clever technique Republicans have been using in regard to negotiation.  The technique is known as nibbling or the “baloney game”.  It goes this way.  Two parties enter into negotiation.  One party gives some concessions and the negotiations are supposedly accepted and closed.  Then the second party, who has nibbled or taken the baloney slices, i.e., the concessions, wants to reopen the negotiations but with those as the new starting point.  The proper defense, which the Democrats should do, is to remind everyone of those consessions and shift the negotiations to getting those back before continuing with the new items.

The Democrats, gave in badly by allowing the budget to be reduced, and it was accepted.  Now the Republicans are asking for more, major reductions.  The Democrats gave in and allowed the original Affordable Health Care bill to be weakened by taking out a number of valuable provisions in order to get the Republicans to accept it.  Now, the Republicans are back demanding further, major concessions.

Occam

I couldn’t agree more.  They’re cowardly. 
They want to sit down and negotiate, fine.  Put a capital gains increase on the table.
Increase the cut-off limit on Social Security withholding.
Increase the estate tax.  Increase the minimum wage. 
Adjust the income tax brackets and increase the percentages.
Put all that stuff on the table.  Gun control! More liberal abortion laws. Greater environmental regulations.
Put it all on the table.  And if they don’t want to deal..then blow it up!!
Make it rain.  Default on the debt.  Shut everything down!
We’ll see how the GOP and the Business interests like that kind of environment.
Stop taking all of this crap off of these Neanderthals.  Call their bluff and make it rain.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6135
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 05 October 2013 09:04 AM
Write4U - 05 October 2013 01:48 AM

Bryan,
That wasn’t my main point, but yes, that’s part of Congress’ role.  “Power of the purse,” remember?  American Gov’t 101.

Yes, if by majority, not a small minority.

Congress, pertaining to itself, sets its own rules.  Is the minority running afoul of those rules somehow?

When I said minority I did not mean the minority party, I meant the small minority within the House republican majority is obstructing their own leadership.  This has resulted in the shutdown of the entire government.
There is a bi-partisan majority available to vote on a CR, until the Republicanss have sorted out who is in charge of their own Caucus.

If you did not like my first analogy, how about;  Some of the teachers don’t like the school principal and have closed down the entire school.

If you want to call the stoppage of almost all social programs to millions of people and furlough some 800,000 service providers for an extended length of time a “partial shutdown”, you are logically correct (as usual), but it is socially and morally unconscionable to those who are being negatively affected, IMO.

Medicaid is a state program for the poor and elderly and heavily subsidized by federal dollars. So either the state has to borrow money and go deeper in debt, or they will have to shave their budgets as well.  People are gonna die as a result of a political tantrum by less than 10% of the congress, mark my words.

I wonder what will happen if we had another natural disaster and FEMA is not functional. Even in case of emergency funding, precious time will be wasted to “get things up and running” again. It is the People who will be paying the price for this disaster and instead of streamlining the Law and make it run smoothly for some 20,000,000 people who need health insurance in order to survive, the People are going to suffer unnecessarily.

There is no pork attached to ACA, in fact it tries to restrict waste and duplication. In principle this is a good thing and once certain weaknesses have been identified there will be adjustments and refinements, not only peculiar to this specific law, but also to the entire Medicare system.

And you state as a fact that it will cost a trillion dollars? 

What Is the Net Budgetary Impact of the Coverage Provisions Taking Into Account the Supreme Court’s Decision?

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of $1,168 billion over the 2012–2022 period—compared with $1,252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 11-year period—for a net reduction of $84 billion. (Those figures do not include the budgetary impact of other provisions of the ACA, which in the aggregate reduce budget deficits.)

http://cbo.gov/publication/43472

It is the Republican budget which the Republicans refuse to sign.  The Democrats have given them everything they asked for, still they want more even though they don’t even know what more they want. It is just obstruction, not to improve the function of the government, but to prevent the government from functioning in an orderly manner.  Sedition!!

Do you see these people arguing for lower pay and perks for Congress itself?  Last words I heard was “I am working so why should I not get paid?  And this is from a Republican standing behind a furloughed security guard, who is still required to serve for “security reasons”.

The shining light of “Governance by the People for the People” democracy is dimming fast

[ Edited: 05 October 2013 05:52 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4850
Joined  2007-10-05
VYAZMA - 05 October 2013 04:07 PM

I couldn’t agree more.  They’re cowardly. 
They want to sit down and negotiate, fine.  Put a capital gains increase on the table.
Increase the cut-off limit on Social Security withholding.
Increase the estate tax.  Increase the minimum wage. 
Adjust the income tax brackets and increase the percentages.
Put all that stuff on the table.  Gun control! More liberal abortion laws. Greater environmental regulations.
Put it all on the table.  And if they don’t want to deal..then blow it up!!
Make it rain.  Default on the debt.  Shut everything down!
We’ll see how the GOP and the Business interests like that kind of environment.
Stop taking all of this crap off of these Neanderthals.  Call their bluff and make it rain.

They are not only cowardly, they are liars and hypocrites. My congress critter, John Carter (R-TX) has been sending emails all week blaming the Democrats for this stalemate. Another esteemed Texas representative, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) recently confronted a park service ranger and said the park service should be ashamed for closing the WWII Memorial. Video here. Note that Rep. Neugebauer is one of the Republicans who voted against the budget proposal.

Vyazma, I agree we need to raise our taxes. We should have universal health care and free tuition for college students. We also need to rebuild our infrastructure across the nation and provide more help for the poor. Sometimes I wish Jesus really was the Messiah and these were the End Time® so I could watch Jesus come riding out of the sky on his white horse and cast the right wing Republicans into Hell.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 06:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6135
Joined  2009-02-26

I admire the remarkable restraint and courtesy afforded this a..hole by the people whom this congressman insulted. 

No, Mr Congressman, it is you who should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you blame a Park Ranger for not opening the park, which YOU voted to shut down.

I am sure Bryan, that you will agree on at least this point.

[ Edited: 05 October 2013 07:05 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 08:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Occam. - 05 October 2013 12:05 PM

I can’t help but smile at the clever technique Republicans have been using in regard to negotiation.  The technique is known as nibbling or the “baloney game”.  It goes this way.  Two parties enter into negotiation.  One party gives some concessions and the negotiations are supposedly accepted and closed.  Then the second party, who has nibbled or taken the baloney slices, i.e., the concessions, wants to reopen the negotiations but with those as the new starting point.

Why, that’s exactly the technique the Democrats used on the Republicans.  They said they’d cut the budget if Republicans would agree to tax hikes.  Democrats got their tax hikes with the deal struck near the new year.  And then went back to the exact same rhetoric they used before they got the concessions.

http://www.zebrafactcheck.com/obamas-jedi-mind-meld-on-the-sequestration/

The proper defense, which the Democrats should do, is to remind everyone of those consessions and shift the negotiations to getting those back before continuing with the new items.

Is that how you recommend the Republicans respond to the Democrats’ use of the technique?

The Democrats, gave in badly by allowing the budget to be reduced, and it was accepted.

The Democrats said they wanted the budget reduced.  Was that a lie?

Now the Republicans are asking for more, major reductions.  The Democrats gave in and allowed the original Affordable Health Care bill to be weakened by taking out a number of valuable provisions in order to get the Republicans to accept it.

I’d like some specifics, here.  No Republican voted for the ACA.  It was a straight party-line vote in the Senate (with Sanders and Lieberman joining the Democrats).

The House approved the Senate version with 34 Democrats joining all the Republicans in opposition.

The PPACA was “weakened” by compromises within the Democratic Caucus.  The apparent goal of health care reform was to pass a bill that was as liberal as the Democrats in Congress could pass.  Getting the approval of Republicans would only become a factor is Democrats couldn’t pass the bill without Republican help.  Thanks to reconciliation, no Republican votes were ever needed to pass the bill.

Now, the Republicans are back demanding further, major concessions.

The nerve of those guys.  I’m serious:  What concession did the Republicans get from the Democrats?  Don’t the Democrats want to trim the budget as they’ve said they want to do?  Or are they lying?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 09:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 05 October 2013 05:27 PM

When I said minority I did not mean the minority party, I meant the small minority within the House republican majority is obstructing their own leadership.

I realized that.  The question still stands.

If you want to call the stoppage of almost all social programs to millions of people and furlough some 800,000 service providers for an extended length of time a “partial shutdown”, you are logically correct (as usual), but it is socially and morally unconscionable to those who are being negatively affected, IMO.

Opinion noted, but I don’t trust your facts.  The states have a huge role in providing social programs, and it’s hard to see how those are crippled by pausing the federal role for a time.

Medicaid is a state program for the poor and elderly and heavily subsidized by federal dollars. So either the state has to borrow money and go deeper in debt, or they will have to shave their budgets as well.  People are gonna die as a result of a political tantrum by less than 10% of the congress, mark my words.

Your words are marked.  You’re invited to list the dead caused by the government shutdown (hopefully accompanied by the evidence justifying your conclusion).

I wonder what will happen if we had another natural disaster and FEMA is not functional.

Well, the House sent a bill to the Senate to fund FEMA but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is apparently heeding VYAZMA’s advice and refusing to allow a vote on the bill.  So it’ll clearly be all the Republicans’ fault if people die for lack of assistance from FEMA.  Or something.

Even in case of emergency funding, precious time will be wasted to “get things up and running” again. It is the People who will be paying the price for this disaster and instead of streamlining the Law and make it run smoothly for some 20,000,000 people who need health insurance in order to survive, the People are going to suffer unnecessarily.

The CBO has warned that the government should not drag its feet in reforming the entitlement programs that threaten to swamp the budget in the not-too-distant future.  They’re such kidders, the CBO.

Suffering’s going to be necessary to cut the budget.  Cut it sooner and smarter and the total pain is less.  That’s assuming Reid has no secret plan to raid rainbow endpoints, confiscating Leprechaun gold to pay for U.S. debt.

There is no pork attached to ACA, in fact it tries to restrict waste and duplication. In principle this is a good thing and once certain weaknesses have been identified there will be adjustments and refinements, not only peculiar to this specific law, but also to the entire Medicare system.

That sounds wonderful!

You actually believe it?

And you state as a fact that it will cost a trillion dollars?

Yes, I do.

What Is the Net Budgetary Impact of the Coverage Provisions Taking Into Account the Supreme Court’s Decision?

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of $1,168 billion over the 2012–2022 period—compared with $1,252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 11-year period—for a net reduction of $84 billion. (Those figures do not include the budgetary impact of other provisions of the ACA, which in the aggregate reduce budget deficits.)

http://cbo.gov/publication/43472

A thousand billion is a trillion last time I checked.  I was clear in describing it as the gross cost, not the net cost after figuring in the offsetting revenues from taxation.  Your link supports what I wrote, albeit I could have said it will cost $1.2 trillion instead of $1 trillion.  And what’s a mere $200 billion in terms of the federal budget?  Peanuts!

It is the Republican budget which the Republicans refuse to sign.

There’s no budget.  It’s a continuing budget resolution.  The Democrats haven’t passed a budget since FY2010.

The Democrats have given them everything they asked for, still they want more even though they don’t even know what more they want.

Are you operating under the assumption that the Democrats don’t want to cut the budget?  Because that conflicts with the party’s public rhetoric.

It is just obstruction, not to improve the function of the government, but to prevent the government from functioning in an orderly manner.  Sedition!!

Who’s going to reform the entitlement programs (as the CBO urges) and when?  The train is approaching a financial rockslide.  How long do we ignore the brake handle?

Do you see these people arguing for lower pay and perks for Congress itself?  Last words I heard was “I am working so why should I not get paid?  And this is from a Republican standing behind a furloughed security guard, who is still required to serve for “security reasons”.

Your quotation‘s not coming up in a phrase-specific search.  Many in Congress (from both parties) are either forgoing their pay or donating it to charity during the budget standoff.

The shining light of “Governance by the People for the People” democracy is dimming fast

Again, the ACA is an unpopular law.  Why not delay the individual mandate for a year after the president has already delayed the employer mandate for a year?  Wait!  Maybe the president is guilty of ... sedition!  How dare he delay that duly passed law!

[ Edited: 06 October 2013 12:12 AM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3