|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote: The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people. The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it. Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats. Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating. The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican. Right wing extremists have shut down the government. Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power.
Yes. And even with winning the House in 2010, they proved incapable of repealing the law over and over and over again. Then the man won the Republican nomination who had devised a near-identical plan for his state and both he and the VP supported several provisions of the act multiple times over the course of the election and waffled on whether or not it should be repealed, and still lost.
If, in an alternate universe, Senate Democrats were holding up a Romney-created Medicare voucher in this same way after passing it as a law in early 2013, it would be equally appalling.
|
On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote: This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization.
So by virtue of the democratic process the House, being able to shut down the government whenever something happens they dont like, have supreme power over the United States of America.
What a wonderful democratic process you have there.
|
Never waste a good crisis Just enjoy the excelent opportunitys this whole situation gives.
|
They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote.
The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar.
On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote: The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people. The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it. Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats. Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating. The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican. Right wing extremists have shut down the government. Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power. On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote: Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions. lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening. It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal.
If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics.
|
On October 04 2013 01:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote: This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization.
So by virtue of the democratic process the House, being able to shut down the government whenever something happens they dont like, have supreme power over the United States of America. What a wonderful democratic process you have there. No, they don't have the power to shut down the government whenever they want. They only have the power to vote against a spending provision when it comes up.
|
It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them.
|
On October 04 2013 00:04 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 19:46 paralleluniverse wrote: Any interesting Obamacare stories from people who have tried the exchanges? And I wrote it in the other thread as well, big props to the Republicans for setting the narrative. Pretty much everyone calls it "Obamacare" now instead of the ACA.
Good for them. The practice of giving emotional names to laws really needs to go. What's next, 'Save the Puppies Act'?
Speaker: "Is lighting money on fire to provide warmth to stray dogs really a good idea?" President: "Mr. Speaker, why do you hate puppies?"
BTW, if democrats called the Patriot Act the Mass Surveillance and Secret Courts Act we might have had a more meaningful debate on it.
|
On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote: It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. You are acting as if appropriations bills and CRs are sacred ground that have never been and aren't supposed to be spoiled by politics.
|
|
On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote. The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar. Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote: The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people. The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it. Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats. Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating. The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican. Right wing extremists have shut down the government. Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power. On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote: [quote]
I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA).
As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote: Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions. lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening. It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics.
Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll.
|
On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote: It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities.
Good. Explain the differences.
Argue yourself. You don't need me.
|
On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote. The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar. On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote: The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people. The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it. Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats. Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating. The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican. Right wing extremists have shut down the government. Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power. On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] [quote]
Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions. lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening. It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote: It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above.
|
On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote. The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar. On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote: The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people. The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it. Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats. Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating. The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican. Right wing extremists have shut down the government. Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power. On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote: [quote]
Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions. lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening. It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote: It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above.
No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations.
|
On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote. The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar. On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote: The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people. The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it. Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats. Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating. The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican. Right wing extremists have shut down the government. Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power. On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions. lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening. It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote: It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less.
And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA.
|
On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote. The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar. On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote: The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people. The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it. Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats. Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating. The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican. Right wing extremists have shut down the government. Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power. On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote: [quote]
So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions. lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening. It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote: It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA.
The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation.
|
WASHINGTON — With a budget deal still elusive and a deadline approaching on raising the debt ceiling, Speaker John A. Boehner has told colleagues that he is determined to prevent a federal default and is willing to pass a measure through a combination of Republican and Democratic votes, according to one House Republican.
The lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Boehner had said he would be willing to violate the so-called Hastert Rule if necessary to pass a debt-limit increase. The informal rule refers to a policy of not bringing to the floor any measure that does not have a majority of Republican votes.
Other Republicans also said Thursday that they got the sense that Mr. Boehner would do whatever was necessary to ensure that the country did not default on its debt.
Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, who was one of just 22 House Republicans this year who helped Mr. Boehner pass three crucial bills — to avert a fiscal showdown, to provide relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, and to pass the Violence Against Women Act — with a majority of Democratic support, said he expected that he may be asked to do so again.
“Hurricane Sandy, the fiscal cliff, all of the big votes require reasonable Republicans and Democrats to come together in order to pass it and get it to the president’s desk,” he said. “This will be no different.”
Source
|
On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote. The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar. On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it. Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats. Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating. The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican. Right wing extremists have shut down the government. Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power. On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general.
So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions. lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening. It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote: It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA.
|
A handful of big-name firms and many small ones are making major changes to their health care plans this fall, and while some big companies are blaming the Affordable Care Act, insurance and economic experts call those claims an exaggeration.
Making health insurance changes, including big premium and deductible hikes when the rate of increase in health care costs has slowed, creates a "messaging issue," says University of Michigan business economics professor Thomas Buchmueller.
"That's not an easy conversation," says Buchmueller. "It's convenient to say, 'the ACA is raising our costs.'"
Big companies citing the ACA are "using this as cover," says Farzan Bharucha, a health care strategist for consulting firm Kurt Salmon. "Companies are making a business decision that by dropping or limiting coverage you won't have employees leave."
Still, there has been big news from some big companies — and even a major university — and some cite the new law.
Among them:
• Darden Restaurants. The owner of Red Lobster, Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse, decided last fall to hire fewer full-time workers and more part-time workers to lessen expected costs of insuring full-time workers under the ACA. But it reversed the policy in December after complaints. The company recently decided to give employees a designated sum of money to use to choose their own insurer and plan level through a private online exchange that is separate from the new government exchanges. Darden says the move is unrelated to the health law. Private exchanges are an increasingly popular way for employers to reduce their health costs without cutting coverage for employees, who would be considered insured for the purposes of the ACA.
• Home Depot. The retailer said last month that full-time employees' insurance plans will cost more this fall because its insurance prices had risen. Spokesman Stephen Holmes wouldn't comment on whether that was due to the ACA: "We don't discuss our cost structure, so I'm not going to point specifically to any one thing." The home-improvement chain also said in September that it's sending about 20,000 part-time employees who had low-cost/low-benefit "mini-med" plans prohibited under ACA to the new federal and state marketplaces to buy their own insurance. Holmes wouldn't disclose whether workers will get a subsidy to pay for their new insurance, but these plans are nearly always paid fully by employees.
• Securitas. The large security-guard provider Securitas said last week that it's sending 55,000 employees to the new state exchanges to buy their own insurance plans. The move was in response to the prohibition of "mini-med" insurance plans that the company previously provided. Spokesman Jim McNulty says the company didn't contribute to the plans and will not be giving workers money to buy on the exchanges. He expects most of the workers on the plans — 90% of whom are full time — will qualify for government subsidies.
• Sears. The retailer decided to give employees a set amount of money to choose their own health care insurer and benefits through an online private exchange run by Aon. "The Affordable Care Act motivated us to think differently about the health care benefits that we provide associates," says spokesman Howard Riefs. But, he noted, "The final decision to proceed with a private exchange model was made independent of Affordable Care Act considerations."
• UPS. The delivery company dropped health insurance for about 15,000 of its employees' spouses whose employers also offered insurance. In a memo to workers, the company said it expects to incur about a 12% rise in costs next year due to the Affordable Care Act — specifically the need to cover dependent children longer and the expected rise in the number of employees enrolling in plans. The University of Virginia also dropped this type of spousal coverage and blamed the health law last month.
"There's nothing in the ACA that would make dropping spousal coverage be an obvious response," says Buchmueller. "That's the type of strategy firms have been doing for a while."
Is health law really to blame for plan changes?
|
On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote. The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar. On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote: [quote]
Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats.
Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating.
The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican.
Right wing extremists have shut down the government.
Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power. On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote: [quote]
So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto.
This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions. lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening. It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote: It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA.
So then what do the Dems get out of it if they defund the ACA?
|
On October 04 2013 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:04 Adila wrote:On October 04 2013 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:43 Mercy13 wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They won the 2012 election. It's not a popular vote. The real world isn't a lab where you can change one variable, gerrymandering, and assume that all other variables will remain constants. Likely different candidates would have run on different platforms and attracted different votes. The outcome could have been radically different or surprisingly similar. On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote: [quote]
Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats.
Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating.
The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican.
Right wing extremists have shut down the government.
Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power. On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote: [quote]
So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto.
This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions. lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening. It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Wait... you can't see how this is not a valid comparison? You are either delusional or a troll. My only point is that politicians use what leverage they have to get what they want. The difference now is that the leverage is more powerful with larger consequences. That makes it a valid comparison. If you can't see that you're bought into the political rhetoric. Edit: On October 04 2013 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 01:21 DoubleReed wrote: It's comparisons like that, Jonny, that make you look delusional.
You know plenty of dramatic differences between those two situations. You do not need me to enumerate them. I know there are differences. But there are also similarities. Good. Explain the differences. Argue yourself. See above. No meaningful comparison can be made between the two situations because of the nature of the "leverage." In one, Obama offered something the GOP wanted in exchange for something he wanted. That's how negotiation works. In the present situation, the GOP is threatening to harm the country unless they get what they want. Unless you are arguing that not harming the country is an exclusively Democratic priority, there is no equivalency between the two situations. The GOP pretty much wanted to Bush tax cuts to stay. Completely. Obama wanted portions to stay and portions to go. Obama got what he wanted just watered down a bit. The only thing the GOP got was losing less. And you are wrong on the Democrat's position. They have ONLY offered to fund the government if the ACA is also funded. They will ONLY prevent harm coming to the country if they get what they want - full funding of the ACA. The ACA is already funded. The shutdown has had 0 effect on implementation. That's why Dems want a "clean" CR passed. That results a funded ACA.
They want a clean CR so the 800.000 people who got screwed over can go back to work. the ACA will keep going with or without this CR. Only if they attach artificial delays like the Republicans want will the ACA be delayed. Which is why the Dems are so adamant about a clean CR.
|
|
|
|