On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
I guess so.
I'm not a House Republican member, so I won't claim to know why they're doing this, but I suspect that this is not much more than a political maneuver to appease their fringe elements. Even if the economic backlash is worth the repeal of Obamacare, the precedent set if this succeeds will most definitely cause serious problems in the future. If political parties can overturn policy they don’t like by completely bypassing the political process via holding the country hostage, our Legislature will cease to function.
On October 02 2013 04:04 Millitron wrote:
On October 02 2013 04:02 Incognoto wrote:
On October 02 2013 03:59 Ryuu314 wrote:
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the individual mandate has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, which honestly should've been the final nail in that debate.
Just because a law has been deemed constitutional doesn't mean they have to stop fighting over it. Just that they can't argue against it by claiming its unconstitutional. Unless there's some way to get the case heard again that I'm not aware of.
Oh, I completely agree. If they believe the policy is bad they should absolutely continue to fight against it. What they shouldn't do, however, is completely circumvent the political system by holding the country hostage.
The Supreme Court does re-hear issues, but generally not for many years after its original finding. It's also possible for a case not directly related to the individual mandate to make its way up to the Supreme Court and in the process of deciding on the case, the Court can override its prior decision. These things aren't common, but they do happen.
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
I guess so.
I'm not a House Republican member, so I won't claim to know why they're doing this, but I suspect that this is not much more than a political maneuver to appease their fringe elements. Even if the economic backlash is worth the repeal of Obamacare, the precedent set if this succeeds will most definitely cause serious problems in the future. If political parties can overturn policy they don’t like by completely bypassing the political process via holding the country hostage, our Legislature will cease to function.
On October 02 2013 04:04 Millitron wrote:
On October 02 2013 04:02 Incognoto wrote:
On October 02 2013 03:59 Ryuu314 wrote:
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the individual mandate has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, which honestly should've been the final nail in that debate.
Just because a law has been deemed constitutional doesn't mean they have to stop fighting over it. Just that they can't argue against it by claiming its unconstitutional. Unless there's some way to get the case heard again that I'm not aware of.
It shows a fundamental lack of respect for the democratic process. These people are there to enact the will of the voters, not play one-ups-manship to appease fringe yokels. Republican members of congress have shown time and time again that they care far more about their next primary than about their country.
The United States is NOT a democracy. As the video just a little ways up the page shows, the American public has absolutely no idea what they want. Congressmen aren't there to do the people's bidding, they're there to run the country. If they were supposed to just do what the people want, why not just get rid of Congress and have everything put up to a referendum? Cut out the middle man?
The US is not a true democracy and it's never been one and it was designed NOT to be one. The general public is, unfortunately, severely uninformed to make policy decisions. The idea of a democratic republic is that the public elects people best suited to act in their interest.
If we had true democracy, black people minorities would be slaves at worst, second class citizens at best. Homosexual couples would never be allowed to marry anywhere and would likely be in jail (sodomy was classified as a crime in many states). Our economy would be in the shit because policy would change at the whims of each generation. To put it simply, they're not supposed to do what the people want, they're supposed to do what is best for the people. There's a difference.
There absolutely is a difference, I agree. I just think the republicans who're against Obamacare are right, while I guess you don't.
Honestly, I think there's this huge cultural divide in the US, and we'd all be better off if we split. Liberals can go have their own country and get all the Obamacare and gun regulation they want, and Libertarians can have their own country and get all individual liberty they want. Everybody wins. Except maybe Neocons, but I don't care about them.
On October 02 2013 04:04 Millitron wrote: They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate.
Is this some sort of joke, or was this written in dead seriousness?
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
I guess so.
I'm not a House Republican member, so I won't claim to know why they're doing this, but I suspect that this is not much more than a political maneuver to appease their fringe elements. Even if the economic backlash is worth the repeal of Obamacare, the precedent set if this succeeds will most definitely cause serious problems in the future. If political parties can overturn policy they don’t like by completely bypassing the political process via holding the country hostage, our Legislature will cease to function.
On October 02 2013 04:04 Millitron wrote:
On October 02 2013 04:02 Incognoto wrote:
On October 02 2013 03:59 Ryuu314 wrote:
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the individual mandate has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, which honestly should've been the final nail in that debate.
Just because a law has been deemed constitutional doesn't mean they have to stop fighting over it. Just that they can't argue against it by claiming its unconstitutional. Unless there's some way to get the case heard again that I'm not aware of.
The time for arguing about Obamacare has come and gone. The Tea Party is now arguing that the entire government should not have funding at all, simply because they don't like this one law that has been put into place. The constitution stipulates that Congress shall pass a budget, this is one of congress' primary jobs. The Tea Party is now refusing to do their jobs because they instead choose to be whiny crybabies about this one law that was already signed by the president. If they want to repeal Obamacare, they need to get their majority back in the Senate and pass legislation to do so. The way they're handling this is simply irresponsible and is going to cause unnecessary collateral damage to the country.
The House has been passing budgets left and right. The Senate has either not brought them up for vote, or didn't pass them.
That's because the budgets sent to them have been a complete farce.
On October 02 2013 04:04 Millitron wrote: They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate.
Is this some sort of joke, or was this written in dead seriousness?
On October 02 2013 03:27 ZeromuS wrote: OK is there somewhere I can read in simple terms why obamacare has resulted in the shut down?
This seems weird to me. In Canada if a budget bill is turned down the government keeps working and everyone goes back to the polls to elect another government. The idea being if the majority of the elected people representing the regular people are voting down a budget, then it means the people dont agree with how the gov wants to spend money so its time to vote and see who has the power.
The majority in the house, the GOP, attached demands to the passing of the budget that included delaying obamacare/ACA for a year. Democrat majority in the Senate refused to negotiate with them because they don't want to bow to economic terrorism. House refused to send a budget without the OC/ACA attachments, Senate refuses to pass one with those attachments, government shutdown.
That sounds so petty and ridiculous its disgusting. If its causing THAT big a rift in the government it should be put to a popular vote of the people. A referendum - everybody gets a chance to vote for obama care or against obama care
It's funny because that would result in Obamacare losing HUGE at the polls, probably by more than 10 points.
But I agree with everyone else. We shouldn't do things that way. Would be awesome just this once though.
Just want to point out that it's interesting that while approval for Obamacare is pretty darn low, when polls ask the public if they approve of individual items in Obamacare, approval for those items are generally quite high.
Funnily enough, the same can be said of the Tea Party. When asked about the Tea Party, people generally have a low opinion of it. When asked about individual tea party positions with no labels attached, people approve of them by wide majorities.
Obamacare has some good in it. The good is entirely outweighed by the bad.
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
I guess so.
I'm not a House Republican member, so I won't claim to know why they're doing this, but I suspect that this is not much more than a political maneuver to appease their fringe elements. Even if the economic backlash is worth the repeal of Obamacare, the precedent set if this succeeds will most definitely cause serious problems in the future. If political parties can overturn policy they don’t like by completely bypassing the political process via holding the country hostage, our Legislature will cease to function.
On October 02 2013 04:04 Millitron wrote:
On October 02 2013 04:02 Incognoto wrote:
On October 02 2013 03:59 Ryuu314 wrote:
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the individual mandate has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, which honestly should've been the final nail in that debate.
Just because a law has been deemed constitutional doesn't mean they have to stop fighting over it. Just that they can't argue against it by claiming its unconstitutional. Unless there's some way to get the case heard again that I'm not aware of.
The time for arguing about Obamacare has come and gone. The Tea Party is now arguing that the entire government should not have funding at all, simply because they don't like this one law that has been put into place. The constitution stipulates that Congress shall pass a budget, this is one of congress' primary jobs. The Tea Party is now refusing to do their jobs because they instead choose to be whiny crybabies about this one law that was already signed by the president. If they want to repeal Obamacare, they need to get their majority back in the Senate and pass legislation to do so. The way they're handling this is simply irresponsible and is going to cause unnecessary collateral damage to the country.
I just don't see how you can hold the Tea Party 100% responsible for this. I mean, there whole principle is to oppose things like Obamacare, I don't see how you can expect them to change this and still be the Tea Party. That's just who they are.
Now you can absolutely put blame on Republicans for choosing to pander them and not to disassociate from them. You may say that it is a political move but it is still a choice. If, as you imply, many Republicans disagree with the Tea Party, they can always just vote against them. Would that really be so bad? "Mainstream" republicans have made a choice that government shutdown is preferable to disagreeing with the Tea Party, and I definitely blame them for that.
I'll never blame anyone for (in Congress or in life) for voting for their particular beliefs because they honestly believe it is best for the country. I will always blame (and despise) those who vote against what is best for their country because of politics and their desire to get re-elected and stay in power.
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate.
What? If the mandate goes away the entire thing falls apart. There's no other way based on obtaining private insurance that's workable.
They are asking them to postpone the mandate for individuals for one year; the same consideration they made for companies. They are also asking for congressman to be subject to the same rules and regulations as the American people.
Not even close to being the same thing. The employer mandate was meant to restrict businesses from dumping a large number of people onto the public system as a, "You're on your own now, bub!" A smoothing part of the bill. Individual mandate is an essential part, without which forces insurance companies to take huge risks with the language regarding preexisting conditions, as well as creating moral hazard regarding coverage and preexisting conditions.
Either everyone here is blind to it because they don't know about it, or you're being naïve or possibly you are ignoring it: employers are already trying to dump health insurance and take the fines that come their way. In some circumstances it even saves them money by doing this. My ex employer was trying to negotiate this into our union contract this past year and I know of two other companies (rather large corporations) that are trying to do the same. These same companies have already cut out hiring any new full time employees and making everything part time work in order to manage benefits paid out. This new law doesn't make it cheaper for businesses to run and unfortunately they will cut costs elsewhere to cover it. The end result will most likely be the companies taking the fines and "dumping a large number of people onto the public system".
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate.
What? If the mandate goes away the entire thing falls apart. There's no other way based on obtaining private insurance that's workable.
They are asking them to postpone the mandate for individuals for one year; the same consideration they made for companies. They are also asking for congressman to be subject to the same rules and regulations as the American people.
Not even close to being the same thing. The employer mandate was meant to restrict businesses from dumping a large number of people onto the public system as a, "You're on your own now, bub!" A smoothing part of the bill. Individual mandate is an essential part, without which forces insurance companies to take huge risks with the language regarding preexisting conditions, as well as creating moral hazard regarding coverage and preexisting conditions.
Either everyone here is blind to it because they don't know about it, or you're being naïve or possibly you are ignoring it: employers are already trying to dump health insurance and take the fines that come their way. In some circumstances it even saves them money by doing this. My ex employer was trying to negotiate this into our union contract this past year and I know of two other companies (rather large corporations) that are trying to do the same. These same companies have already cut out hiring any new full time employees and making everything part time work in order to manage benefits paid out. This new law doesn't make it cheaper for businesses to run and unfortunately they will cut costs elsewhere to cover it. The end result will most likely be the companies taking the fines and "dumping a large number of people onto the public system".
Which will eventually lead to a growing burden that becomes so massive that the system as it's designed cannot handle it. Then when the collapse happens, the liberal will point at those mean companies and say: "See! We can't let greedy companies be in charge anymore! We need single-payer!"
On October 02 2013 03:01 Grollicus wrote: The more I read about this the more I feel some people in the congress are very sore losers
Actually, every single member of Congress won their last election, so they can't really be losers, can they ? They are all doing what they were elected to do. Many Liberals just seem to think that because they won the Presidential election, that the House and Senate should just be lapdogs to the President's wishes. Doesn't work that way. This President has made no effort whatsoever to work with Congress, and here we are. There are ALWAYS two sides to an agreement, or lack thereof.
Would you say the same thing if in the future a relatively small group of Democrats in the House threaten to shut down the government if a law isn't passed that bans assault weapons?
Saying you'll agree to fund the government in exchange for getting what you want isn't negotiation, it's coercion.
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate.
What? If the mandate goes away the entire thing falls apart. There's no other way based on obtaining private insurance that's workable.
They are asking them to postpone the mandate for individuals for one year; the same consideration they made for companies. They are also asking for congressman to be subject to the same rules and regulations as the American people.
Not even close to being the same thing. The employer mandate was meant to restrict businesses from dumping a large number of people onto the public system as a, "You're on your own now, bub!" A smoothing part of the bill. Individual mandate is an essential part, without which forces insurance companies to take huge risks with the language regarding preexisting conditions, as well as creating moral hazard regarding coverage and preexisting conditions.
Either everyone here is blind to it because they don't know about it, or you're being naïve or possibly you are ignoring it: employers are already trying to dump health insurance and take the fines that come their way. In some circumstances it even saves them money by doing this. My ex employer was trying to negotiate this into our union contract this past year and I know of two other companies (rather large corporations) that are trying to do the same. These same companies have already cut out hiring any new full time employees and making everything part time work in order to manage benefits paid out. This new law doesn't make it cheaper for businesses to run and unfortunately they will cut costs elsewhere to cover it. The end result will most likely be the companies taking the fines and "dumping a large number of people onto the public system".
You're right, the law isn't perfect and it might even be seriously flawed. Better shut down the government, potentially costing the economy billions of dollars, rather than come up with serious proposals for improving it!
On October 02 2013 03:01 Grollicus wrote: The more I read about this the more I feel some people in the congress are very sore losers
Actually, every single member of Congress won their last election, so they can't really be losers, can they ? They are all doing what they were elected to do. Many Liberals just seem to think that because they won the Presidential election, that the House and Senate should just be lapdogs to the President's wishes. Doesn't work that way. This President has made no effort whatsoever to work with Congress, and here we are. There are ALWAYS two sides to an agreement, or lack thereof.
Would you say the same thing if in the future a relatively small group of Democrats in the House threaten to shut down the government if a law isn't passed that bans assault weapons?
Saying you'll agree to fund the government in exchange for getting what you want isn't negotiation, it's coercion.
I'd say the two sides need to negotiate a settlement. Just thought if point out, only one of the two parties have publicly declared there weren't going to negotiate to reopen the government. Anyone Care to guess which one?
On October 02 2013 03:01 Grollicus wrote: The more I read about this the more I feel some people in the congress are very sore losers
Actually, every single member of Congress won their last election, so they can't really be losers, can they ? They are all doing what they were elected to do. Many Liberals just seem to think that because they won the Presidential election, that the House and Senate should just be lapdogs to the President's wishes. Doesn't work that way. This President has made no effort whatsoever to work with Congress, and here we are. There are ALWAYS two sides to an agreement, or lack thereof.
Ok Kait your're right...sort of. The republican congressional members were elected to do what they are doing. The problem is that the reason they only won the house is because they gerrymandered the districts to include so many wackos that only republicans could win them.
this is partially evidenced in how despite congressional positions resulting from the size of a given states population, republicans won the house with many less votes than democrats received.
Hasn't worked with congress...? You have got to be joking....? You want Obama to 'work' with these guys......?
P.S. Even by those metrics Boehner and McConnell are 0 for ever
On October 02 2013 03:01 Grollicus wrote: The more I read about this the more I feel some people in the congress are very sore losers
Actually, every single member of Congress won their last election, so they can't really be losers, can they ? They are all doing what they were elected to do. Many Liberals just seem to think that because they won the Presidential election, that the House and Senate should just be lapdogs to the President's wishes. Doesn't work that way. This President has made no effort whatsoever to work with Congress, and here we are. There are ALWAYS two sides to an agreement, or lack thereof.
Would you say the same thing if in the future a relatively small group of Democrats in the House threaten to shut down the government if a law isn't passed that bans assault weapons?
Saying you'll agree to fund the government in exchange for getting what you want isn't negotiation, it's coercion.
I would call them fools and laugh at them when that blows up in their faces... but I wouldn't say that they aren't doing their jobs. Their job includes using the power vested in them to fight for political conclusions they want.
As for it being coercion... welcome to the real world. This isn't fun time, it's fucking politics. If Democrat Senators/President/Representatives don't like being put in a hot-seat by their political opposition then they need to find a new occupation.
On October 02 2013 03:01 Grollicus wrote: The more I read about this the more I feel some people in the congress are very sore losers
Actually, every single member of Congress won their last election, so they can't really be losers, can they ? They are all doing what they were elected to do. Many Liberals just seem to think that because they won the Presidential election, that the House and Senate should just be lapdogs to the President's wishes. Doesn't work that way. This President has made no effort whatsoever to work with Congress, and here we are. There are ALWAYS two sides to an agreement, or lack thereof.
Would you say the same thing if in the future a relatively small group of Democrats in the House threaten to shut down the government if a law isn't passed that bans assault weapons?
Saying you'll agree to fund the government in exchange for getting what you want isn't negotiation, it's coercion.
A large enough block of votes to prevent something they don't want from passing ? That's not really a "relatively small group", is it ?
Single payer will happen in the end, its inevitable. Its america,s contribution towards synchronising the big economys in the world to be able to continue with globalisation and unification. Europes contribution is less rights for workers and smaller public welfare services. Ask yourself this:would you rather accept public healthcare or raise public welfare services and give workers more rights and higher minimum wages. Republicans are just bullying obama a bit before accepting the inevitable. Well thats how i see it at least, might be wrong though
On October 02 2013 04:43 MstrJinbo wrote: I'd say the two sides need to negotiate a settlement. Just thought if point out, only one of the two parties have publicly declared there weren't going to negotiate to reopen the government. Anyone Care to guess which one?
The Republicans, of course. Negotiation cannot happen at the barrel of a gun.
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote: This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
Well, this shutdown can and most likely will affect the stock market, which will in turn affect the economy and the general public. Governmental shutdown will cause lowered confidence in the United States and its ability to pay off its debts, pay its employees (who are numerous), and essentially run the "business" (the US government spends a lot of money doing stuff like guilding contracts and shit and this money definitely drives the economy in a non-neglible way).
If this shutdown goes on for a reasonably long time, it can have drastic impacts for the general public.
So I take it republicans feel that this shut down and the economic backlash it's going to cause will be justified if Obama takes back health care. meaning that republicans feel that this shut down is worth it in the long run
They're not demanding he even takes back all of it. Just a few contentious points like the Individual Mandate.
What? If the mandate goes away the entire thing falls apart. There's no other way based on obtaining private insurance that's workable.
They are asking them to postpone the mandate for individuals for one year; the same consideration they made for companies. They are also asking for congressman to be subject to the same rules and regulations as the American people.
Not even close to being the same thing. The employer mandate was meant to restrict businesses from dumping a large number of people onto the public system as a, "You're on your own now, bub!" A smoothing part of the bill. Individual mandate is an essential part, without which forces insurance companies to take huge risks with the language regarding preexisting conditions, as well as creating moral hazard regarding coverage and preexisting conditions.
Either everyone here is blind to it because they don't know about it, or you're being naïve or possibly you are ignoring it: employers are already trying to dump health insurance and take the fines that come their way. In some circumstances it even saves them money by doing this. My ex employer was trying to negotiate this into our union contract this past year and I know of two other companies (rather large corporations) that are trying to do the same. These same companies have already cut out hiring any new full time employees and making everything part time work in order to manage benefits paid out. This new law doesn't make it cheaper for businesses to run and unfortunately they will cut costs elsewhere to cover it. The end result will most likely be the companies taking the fines and "dumping a large number of people onto the public system".
You're right, the law isn't perfect and it might even be seriously flawed. Better shut down the government, potentially costing the economy billions of dollars, rather than come up with serious proposals for improving it!
No that won't do any good either. However, postponing the individual mandate and holding congressmen to the same level as the people they serve would have had the government open this morning. That was all the house wanted last night; those two provisions but they are the ones being hard headed? Sure.
EPT
