Quote :

"Unfortunately, there isn't any easy way to see exactly what money is coming in and what money is going out because Congress hasn't done a proper budget in years. Honestly, I think this is intentional. If we could see clear figures (not CBO estimates) since 2008, we'd probably find it alarming."

So despite all the evidence I'm supposed to take your word for it that the deficit is spiraling out of control?

10/3/2013 2:36:12 PM

Quote :

"I never said it was a single payer system, nor did I say that health premiums were going down in the previous years. You are not debating my words, you are debating the words that you are putting in my mouth, and that is a bit juvenile (even for TWW). We just got letters from HR about insurance changes for next year. This year, coverage for myself and my family took $7,600 out of my paychecks. Next year, it will be $9,800. It is still a 90/10 plan but some of the deductibles went up a bit and a few perks were eliminated. It is a roughly equivalent plan but $2,000 is a pretty big chunk of change for slightly reduced benefits. Everybody knows that premiums have been rising for years, but an increase of this magnitude in a single year is unprecedented since I have been in the workplace"

So you admit that your premiums have been rising for years (like most other peoples'), but yet you attribute the entire $2k increase from this year to the next to the ACA. Did your insurance provider tell you that the $2,000 increase in your premium is 100% due to the ACA and its provision that insurance companies have to cover people with pre-existing conditions? If now, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

How large is your employer? Is your medical insurance provider going forward the same as last year?

Quote :

"I am absolutely not ignorant of what the ACA is or in how it functions, but if you have read the Wikipedia entry with the same level of reading comprehension that you have displayed in this thread then you very well may be. "

Wait a second, I spy a compliment in there. Thanks mane

Quote :

"I consider myself a moderate, you may consider me whatever you wish. I break with the GOP on matters of gay rights, immigration reform, most environmental policy, drug law reform, and a number of other issues. I tend to side with the GOP on matters of fiscal policy, foreign policy, gun control, and entitlement reform."

So that makes you more of a Libertarian than a Republican right? I'm genuinely curious...see where you land on this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

10/3/2013 2:37:24 PM

Quote :

"So despite all the evidence I'm supposed to take your word for it that the deficit is spiraling out of control?"

The deficit? No. The debt? Yeah, it seems to be. Any reductions in the deficit are less than the cost to service the new debt. I'm not comforted by the government promising to reduce the deficit 10 years from now.

There have been no cuts. There have been reductions in the projected growth of spending. This is all just manipulating numbers to make it seem like there has been real sacrifice somewhere.

10/3/2013 2:46:39 PM

I got a letter from my healthcare provider noting to the fact that my insurance may increase due to ACA. It has risen 20% since the start of the year, but remained pretty flat for the last 5 years, which isn't too bad.

Quote :

"So despite all the evidence I'm supposed to take your word for it that the deficit is spiraling out of control?"

No, the idea is that we don't honestly know what is being spiraled out of control or how much of it. It could be Hitler kittens...

Quote :

"Our annual deficit is falling faster than at any point in the past 30-40 years, 2/3rds of that reduction are from spending reductions. This administration should be a conservatives wet dream, I just don't get why they can't see that"

You do realize that in 2009 our deficit went through the roof. Anything less than that expensive year makes us look frugal as shit, so it appears to fall faster when in reality our deficit is more than any of Bush's year in office. They call this fluffing.

10/3/2013 2:48:10 PM

^^^Yes, the people that came in from the insurance company blamed it in the healthcare law, though I am sure that doesnt account for all 100% of the increase. They said the same thing last year during open enroll as well. My company employs 33,000. Yes, I am a registered Libertarian. Collectively, we hate the GOP and are trying hard to change it.

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ^s]

10/3/2013 2:51:35 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the people that came in from the insurance company blamed it in the healthcare law, though I am sure that doesnt account for all 100% of the increase."

Did they explicitly mention the pre-existing coverage provision as the cause for the increase or are you making an assumption here?

10/3/2013 3:02:26 PM

my results, though i consider the questions irrelevant.

^neither. I used it as an example because it is well known and easily understood.

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2013 3:07:00 PM

^ true, some do seem to be.

hey we're not so different after all!





[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 3:17 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2013 3:07:24 PM

I think the House is using the pressure of the shutdown to force the Senate / White House to make some tough decisions about the budget. I see that as a good thing. They will do the same thing with the debt ceiling shortly.

I dont totally loathe the healthcare law. I think it sucks now, and I hope they will fix it eventually. I wish they had tried something smaller based on SCHIP, but thats just me. I worry, like many that it will change the insurance market in a way that nobody can afford insurance without govt assistance. It is just too much. I like the "baby steps" approach to governing. (conservativism) The healthcare law was added to the CR as a poison pill. It forces Obama to say that he would rather shut down the government than to negotiate his signature bill. It forces him to state that he will not delay the least popular part of the law. (the indiv mandate) and it sets up a public debate over the truecost of the law and what is truly necessary in the fed budget. We need to hear that debate in the public forum.

10/3/2013 3:46:06 PM

If I were an insurance company, wouldn't it make sense to charge people a lot more money and blame it on ACA, especially if very other insurance company was also doing it?

10/3/2013 8:37:01 PM

We will have a supply shortage soon too

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 9:01 PM. Reason : ^^ serious or trolling?]

10/3/2013 8:52:30 PM

Quote :

"serious or trolling?"

sadly, it appears he's serious.

he did post this earlier as an explanation as to why his insurance is going up 25%:

Quote :

"This year, the ACA will cost me over $2k for inferior coverage. This is a direct result of the ACA. People who are already seeing the benefit of ACA coverage (for example: people with pre-existing conditions) are having their benefits paid by the premiums of those who don't have pre-existing conditions (for example: me). People who were previously excluded by the economics of the insurance market are now included. This is covered by the premiums of those who were not previously excluded (me) in the name of fairness. In many cases, not all, I disagree with the concepts of fairness that underlie the changes in the insurance market brought on by the law. "

10/3/2013 9:17:06 PM

Quote :

"I think the House is using the pressure of the shutdown to force the Senate / White House to make some tough decisions about the budget"

There was a representative on NPR laughing at that because the Senate / White House gave in to LITERALLY everything on the budget from the house except the AFA.

Quote :

"it sets up a public debate over the truecost of the law and what is truly necessary in the fed budget. We need to hear that debate in the public forum."

I guess no one paid attention the first time in 2010 when it passed...

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 9:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2013 9:34:47 PM

emory making people look like fools in here.

Quote :

"If I were an insurance company, wouldn't it make sense to charge people a lot more money and blame it on ACA, especially if very other insurance company was also doing it?"

No, it really wouldn't. If every other insurance company is charging arbitrarily high premiums, then the insurance company that charges only what they need to make a healthy profit is going to dominate the market.

If insurance companies are forced to take on new customers that are already sick, then premiums for everyone else necessarily have to go up. There is no escaping that very basic economic reality. Yes, I'm familiar with your silly version of economics where nothing actually costs anythings and prices are purely an illusion created by our corporate overlords, but in the real world, goods and services take time and effort to provide.

If we're going to cover more people with the same number of providers, then prices have to go up. It's that simple. No, there's no magical cost savings when all the uninsured people suddenly sign up. The premiums go up for people that were already paying and that's always been the intention behind this law.

Quote :

"I guess no one paid attention the first time in 2010 when it passed..."

You mean when the law was passed and the speaker of the house said we'd have to pass the law to know what was in it?

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2013 9:43:26 PM

You're not reading the same Emory posts I am

10/3/2013 9:46:11 PM

Quote :

"I think the House is using the pressure of the shutdown to force the Senate / White House to make some tough decisions about the budget. I see that as a good thing. They will do the same thing with the debt ceiling shortly. [...] We need to hear that debate in the public forum."

How much debate in the public forum is enough?

One year?

Two years?

Three years?

Fifty state legislatures?

One Supreme Court lawsuit?

Why wait until now to try and "force the Senate / White House to make some tough decisions"? I'd really love to hear your thoughts on Senate Republicans blocking budget talks for the past 10 months (including yesterday).

10/3/2013 11:02:13 PM

Quote :

"IMSToned420: If I were an insurance company, wouldn't it make sense to charge people a lot more money and blame it on ACA, especially if very other insurance company was also doing it? dtownral: ^^ serious or trolling? synapse: sadly, it appears he's serious."

I love how I cite specific, real, recent events in my own life as evidence of why I have formed the opinions I have and people come back to me with baseless suggestions that the big corporate health insurance profit machines are lying to me to increase their profits. I am repeatedly accused of failing to understand the way the law works by the same folks who are apparently unaware that the the healthcare law actually limits the insurance companies loss ratio, effectively capping profits at ~15%, making the practice you suggest impossible. (and one part of the law I actually support). If you need some help figuring out how the ACA works, you should check wikipedia. I think synapse can find you a link. Furthermore, if you fundamentally distrust big business (as you must to make such a blind assertion) then surely you have taken a moment to reflect on the fact that Democrats have made it illegal not to buy their product.

Imagine if Republicans took both houses of congress and passed a law forcing you to buy certain amount of refined oil or pay a fee of $700 per person or $2,000 per family per year.

As my example of how this law is hurting me appears not to be clear enough, let me put it as plainly as I can. Health insurance companies will have largely two forms of income: premiums (supported by premium payers) and federal subsidies (supported by taxpayers). They have largely one expense: benefits.

I pay premiums. I pay taxes. I get no subsidies. My premiums have gone up. My benefits have gone down. I'm getting hurt by this law. It is in my best interest to oppose it. I have voted and helped to elect representatives who also oppose it. They now hold a majority of one house of congress. This should not be be unexpected to anyone who has been paying attention.

Again, I am not totally, vehemently, opposed to the PPACA. There are elements that I like but for the most part I would like to see them start from scratch.

The thing is, the shutdown isn't really even about the healthcare law. It is about budget concessions. Attaching a provision to delay the individual mandate was a tactic designed to restart the debate and force negotiation. Clearly, it is working.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: How much debate in the public forum is enough? / One year? /Two years? /Three years? /Fifty state legislatures? / One Supreme Court lawsuit?"

The supreme court did not rule on the debt ceiling or on the economics of the healthcare law, only on its constitutionality.


[Edited on October 4, 2013 at 12:52 AM. Reason : -]

10/4/2013 12:44:57 AM

first, there's this (which is perfect, so I'll re-post it):

Quote :

"How much debate in the public forum is enough? One year? Two years? Three years? Fifty state legislatures? One Supreme Court lawsuit? Why wait until now to try and "force the Senate / White House to make some tough decisions"? I'd really love to hear your thoughts on Senate Republicans blocking budget talks for the past 10 months (including yesterday)"

and then there's this gem:

Quote :

"The thing is, the shutdown isn't really even about the healthcare law. It is about budget concessions. Attaching a provision to delay the individual mandate was a tactic designed to restart the debate and force negotiation."

it takes a special kind of blind partisanship to think this "isn't really even about the healthcare law", considering that it's completely what this is all about

Quote :

"The supreme court did not rule on the debt ceiling or on the economics of the healthcare law"

what in the fuck?

[Edited on October 4, 2013 at 12:56 AM. Reason : man oh man]

10/4/2013 12:53:53 AM

The shutdown is worse than I expected for basic research...

Quote :

"I don't think the public realizes the devastating impact that this has on scientific research. Scientific research is not like turning on and off an assembly line. Experiments are frequently long-term and complicated. They involve specific treatments and specific times. You can't just stop and restart it. You've probably just destroyed the experiment. You also can't necessarily recover. You can’t begin an experiment all over again. If you do, you'll be set back months - if there's even time and personnel to do it. But often, science moves rapidly, times change, and you can't re-initiate the experiments. It's an enormous loss to scientific research, an enormous loss of time and personnel. Scientists are hardworking people. They work long hours, on weekends, and they do that because it's necessary. The schedules they follow aren't like an industrial plant's. If you interrupt them, they can't pick up and start again. It's an enormous waste of money and resources to interrupt this and have it abandoned."

Also they'll have to put down the lab animals: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/10/government-shutdown-affects-biomedical-research/

10/4/2013 12:56:23 AM

Quote :

"it takes a special kind of blind partisanship to think this "isn't really even about the healthcare law", considering that it's completely what this is all about"

It takes an equally special kind of blind partisanship to post that in a thread about the government shutdown debate when you arent even following the news.

Please explain why the Senate Democrats have blocked house bills to provide funding for National Parks, the National Institute of Health, Veterans Affairs, and the National Guard. THIS HAPPENED TODAY I have declared that the debate is about funding and the federal budget. Maybe you can explain to me how that is related to the affordable care act, since

Quote :

"it's completely what this is about"

^Just so you know, I happen to be a researcher. For the last decade, I have conducted scientific research in defense related technologies under government contract. I read the article on wired, and I consider it to be a bit sensationalist. Most long term studies are paid for under contract and the shutdown does not effect contract obligations.

[Edited on October 4, 2013 at 1:10 AM. Reason : -]

10/4/2013 1:06:21 AM

Let's try this again.

Quote :

"Attaching a provision to delay the individual mandate was a tactic designed to restart the debate and force negotiation."

I'll quote the relevant bit from my post:

Quote :

"Why wait until now to try and "force the Senate / White House to make some tough decisions"? I'd really love to hear your thoughts on Senate Republicans blocking budget talks for the past 10 months (including yesterday)."

Quote :

"The supreme court did not rule on the debt ceiling or on the economics of the healthcare law, only on its constitutionality."

No shit. Did you know the Supreme Court ruling was also an opportunity for public debate?

I'd also love to hear what you have to say about the debt ceiling.

10/4/2013 1:06:46 AM

Quote :

"It takes an equally special kind of blind partisanship to post that in a thread about the government shutdown debate when you arent even following the news."

follow the news all day every day, dawg

and I'm not gonna even bother with the second part of your post because holy shit

10/4/2013 1:10:00 AM

Quote :

"it takes a special kind of blind partisanship to think this "isn't really even about the healthcare law", considering that it's completely what this is all about"

it's not about the healthcare law; it's about crippling all government.

10/4/2013 1:13:24 AM

true, but what are they using to achieve that goal?

10/4/2013 1:18:18 AM

Quote :

"Thegoodlife3: and I'm not gonna even bother with the second part of your post because holy shit"

you aren't going to bother because I just pointed out that the house has passed numerous bills that make no mention of altering the healthcare law and are strictly there to provide piecemeal funding to different portions of the federal government and Democrats have blocked them all. It supports my contention that the shutdown is primarily about the budget. It disputes your contention that it is all about healthcare. So you choose to ignore it. Cheers.

Quote :

"No shit. Did you know the Supreme Court ruling was also an opportunity for public debate?"

I was pointing out that this is a different debate I am talking about public debate around the budget in 2013, not public debate about the healthcare law in 2008-2009.

Quote :

" I'd really love to hear your thoughts on Senate Republicans blocking budget talks for the past 10 months (including yesterday).""

Obviously senate republicans are protecting republicans in the house by preventing them from being forced to cast votes that would be unpopular. By the way, that is exactly what the senate majority leader is doing when he blocks a bill funding the national parks. Senate Democrats would look like asses if they voted against it, and if they vote for it then they are submitting to the line-item, piecemeal budget debate that the house is trying to force them into. Politics bro.

[Edited on October 4, 2013 at 1:33 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 4, 2013 at 1:37 AM. Reason : ]

10/4/2013 1:28:52 AM

Quote :

"Obviously senate republicans are protecting republicans in the house by preventing them from being forced to cast votes that would be unpopular."

How does preventing joint budget negotiations for the past 10 months protect House Republicans from casting unpopular votes?

The only way that makes sense is if all negotiated budgets are unpopular with House Republicans. In other words, it only makes sense if House Republicans really aren't all that interested in debate and negotiation.

So which is it? Is this about debate and negotiation, or is this about getting your way no matter what?

Let me reiterate this point: Senate Republicans have been blocking joint chamber budget negotiations; they have not been blocking a budget bill (which would be the product of the negotiations Republicans have spent all of 2013 preventing).

Quote :

"I was pointing out that this is a different debate I am talking about public debate around the budget in 2013, not public debate about the healthcare law in 2008-2009."

You certainly fooled me:

Quote :

"it sets up a public debate over the truecost of the law and what is truly necessary in the fed budget."

What's different about the debate today, vis a vis all the public debates over the past three years? It's not like the ACA being unnecessary federal overreach hasn't been brought up before.

10/4/2013 1:49:35 AM

Dude, I have said it repeatedly. The healthcare provision was a poison pill designed to force a budget debate. It may work, it may not. If not, the debate is surely coming with the next debt ceiling increase.

Quote :

"We're not talking about the clean CR. How does preventing joint budget negotiations for the past 10 months protect House Republicans from casting unpopular votes?The only way that makes sense is if all negotiated budgets are unpopular with House Republicans. In other words, it only makes sense if House Republicans really aren't all that interested in debate and negotiation. So which is it? Is this about debate and negotiation, or is this about getting your way no matter what? Let me reiterate this point: Senate Republicans have been blocking joint chamber budget negotiations; they have not been blocking a budget bill (which would be the product of the negotiations Republicans have spent all of 2013 preventing)."

You don't need to reiterate. I know they are blocking the talks. 18 times over the last year. I get it. You asked why they would do this. I explained. I don't know what else I can do for you.

As far as 'getting your way no matter what' is concerned: Republicans passed a bill that would have prevented the shutdown. Democrats had to choose between a shutdown and changing Obamacare. They chose the shutdown. All that was asked was to delay the individual mandate. The individual mandate is consistently polled as the least popular part of the healthcare law. Democrats chose to defend a provision that the majority of the public opposes knowing that it would result in a shutdown that the public opposes. To people on the other side of the aisle, it looks like the Democrats are insisting on 'getting their way no matter what'.

10/4/2013 2:22:54 AM

So all of this is to force a budget debate the Republicans have been avoiding for ten months.

Makes perfect sense.

10/4/2013 2:50:33 AM

For the last 10 months, they didn't have the bargaining chip they have now.

10/4/2013 2:57:27 AM

I'm glad me not getting paid is useful to someone.

10/4/2013 3:01:07 AM

^^^^to eliminate the mandate, to defund the ACA, to delay it for a year, or to do any of a number of other things are efforts by the Republicans to scrap the entire bill. the ultimate goal is to eliminate everything as much as possible, and a piecemeal attack is just as good as anything else to the Republicans, because it's a start.

if the House said it would only approve a CR if Obama agreed to execute Biden, you can't say the Democrats are unreasonable for not being willing to negotiate. if the House came back with a new proposal to just cut off Biden's arms instead, that's still no reason to discuss it. the point is that some things are non-negotiable, and to refuse to negotiate on those is not unreasonable; it's unreasonable to act like they are points of negotiation at all. (I just figured I'd give an extreme example, not equating the two.)

lastly and more importantly, to agree to any fundamental change in the signature piece of legislation Obama passed - a change he doesn't agree with in any way - in exchange for a SIX WEEK CR, is idiocy on the part of the Democrats. what do you think would happen when we need the next CR, or a full budget?

[Edited on October 4, 2013 at 3:05 AM. Reason : r]

10/4/2013 3:04:47 AM

They'll use that bargaining chip for cup cakes.

10/4/2013 3:06:59 AM

^^Oh, I agree. Republicans are doing all they can to promote their agenda in any way they can, even if that is in little pieces. Can you blame them? Isn't that why they were elected? Of course the CR with the healthcare provision rider was designed to fail. Nobody disputes that. If this temporary shutdown, along with the upcoming debt ceiling debate, together result in budget negotiations and concessions by both parties then you would have to score it as a win for Republicans and their constituents. Unless, of course, the media spin on the matter turns more voters against them. Time will tell.

[Edited on October 4, 2013 at 3:14 AM. Reason : ^s]

10/4/2013 3:13:47 AM

if it works and they get concessions and no backlash then i would agree it is politically expedient. i think what will happen, though, is that there will be a big backlash against republicans from the public. the interesting thing is that the tea party is the cause, but they are protected in general by the makeup of their districts, but the moderate republicans will have to pay for it.

i think soon enough they're going to have to tell the tea party to fuck off and not let them run things because the public sentiment will be too negative.

10/4/2013 3:38:04 AM

Yes, media spin. Everyone would be totally on board with government shutdowns and defaults if it weren't for that pesky media.

I still can't believe our country has never had the opportunity to publicly discuss ACA over the past three years.

10/4/2013 3:56:55 AM

There is no way that emory is not trolling, he's trying to be Colbert

10/4/2013 7:24:26 AM

strangely enough, my political views (from that test) seem to be somewhat close to emory:

10/4/2013 9:13:37 AM

Quote :

"if it works and they get concessions and no backlash then i would agree it is politically expedient. i think what will happen, though, is that there will be a big backlash against republicans from the public. the interesting thing is that the tea party is the cause, but they are protected in general by the makeup of their districts, but the moderate republicans will have to pay for it. i think soon enough they're going to have to tell the tea party to fuck off and not let them run things because the public sentiment will be too negative."

Holy cow, a poster who understands what is going on, is willing to think objectively about the political ramifications, and can even make predictions about how it may play out politically ... and just when I was about to get bored with the thread.

I don't disagree with you: I think it has the potential to hurt moderate republicans. It very well may hurt the GOP overall in the next election. However, the very fact we are discussing this is a win for the tea-party conservatives. The public could become outraged at the shutdown and begin to point fingers. Time will tell where the blame for this stalemate falls, probably with the GOP.

If the tactic fails and costs a few moderate republicans their seats, then it will increase the relative strength of the tea-party movement within the remaining GOP factions. If it works, tea-party conservatives will take credit for forcing budget concessions and grow in popularity. Either way, what we are seeing is a hardening of the right and increasing polarization within american politics. Can we at least agree upon that?

10/4/2013 9:24:32 AM

It's a bit aggravating that the Feds tried to shut down Mount Vernon, which isn't even publicly funded.

10/4/2013 9:37:17 AM

AHA, yes, that's the aggravating thing about all this.

10/4/2013 9:42:03 AM

it just proves what a dog and pony show it all is

10/4/2013 9:48:18 AM

Quote :

"Just so you know, I happen to be a researcher. For the last decade, I have conducted scientific research in defense related technologies under government contract. "

Quote :

"Please explain why the Senate Democrats have blocked house bills to provide funding for National Parks, the National Institute of Health, Veterans Affairs, and the National Guard. THIS HAPPENED TODAY I have declared that the debate is about funding and the federal budget."

DERP ALERT! It's not because this is about funding. It to make the shutdown hurt for the House GOP who made it happen. They don't get to have their cake (government shutdown) and get to eat it (re-opening political helpful parts of the government to reduce criticism) too. Ain't politics grand?

Quote :

"you aren't going to bother because I just pointed out that the house has passed numerous bills that make no mention of altering the healthcare law and are strictly there to provide piecemeal funding to different portions of the federal government and Democrats have blocked them all. It supports my contention that the shutdown is primarily about the budget. It disputes your contention that it is all about healthcare"

If they didn't pass a full CR without mentioning the healthcare law then you have no point.

Quote :

"lastly and more importantly, to agree to any fundamental change in the signature piece of legislation Obama passed - a change he doesn't agree with in any way - in exchange for a SIX WEEK CR, is idiocy on the part of the Democrats. what do you think would happen when we need the next CR, or a full budget?"

That's a pretty good point.

Quote :

"Of course the CR with the healthcare provision rider was designed to fail. Nobody disputes that"

But wait, I thought you were blaming the Senate for not accepting it:

Quote :

"As far as 'getting your way no matter what' is concerned: Republicans passed a bill that would have prevented the shutdown. Democrats had to choose between a shutdown and changing Obamacare. They chose the shutdown. All that was asked was to delay the individual mandate. The individual mandate is consistently polled as the least popular part of the healthcare law. Democrats chose to defend a provision that the majority of the public opposes knowing that it would result in a shutdown that the public opposes. To people on the other side of the aisle, it looks like the Democrats are insisting on 'getting their way no matter what'."

So which is it? Was it designed to fail or is just those asshole Democrats unwilling to negotiate and concerned with getting their way no matter what?

Quote :

"i think what will happen, though, is that there will be a big backlash against republicans from the public."

...which is why they're trying to reduce the backlash by attempting to re-open politically advantageous [albeit an extremely limited amount of] the federal government.

Quote :

"and just when I was about to get bored with the thread."

You only took a 6 hour break from this thread brah. You're not gonna fool anyone with that shit.

Quote :

"However, the very fact we are discussing this is a win for the tea-party conservatives."

As Mike Tyson would say, that logic is impregnable

Quote :

"Time will tell where the blame for this stalemate falls, probably with the GOP"

You don't say? That sounds a lot like back when people were saying "well, we'll see how history judges George W Bush's decision to invade Iraq"...when we all knew exactly how history was going to judge George W Bush's decision to invade Iraq?

Quote :

"Fully 72 percent of Americans disapprove of shutting down the federal government over differences on the Affordable Care Act;"

Quote :

"Republicans in Congress receive more of the blame for the shutdown: 44 percent of Americans blame them, while 35 percent put more blame on President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. "

10/4/2013 9:53:12 AM

what sucks is all the people this dog and pony show is affecting. There is no way the Republicans win this. They need to cut their losses, pass a clean CR to get the government going again then try to win the Senate so they can repeal Obamacare. If so many people are pissed off about Obamacare they could win the Senate.

10/4/2013 9:54:09 AM

one problem with funding individual agencies, for example only funding the VA to process disabled veteran claims, is that they need to work with and get data from other agencies

(another problem is that it is transparent partisan bullshit)

10/4/2013 9:57:36 AM

Quote :

"DERP ALERT! It's not because this is about funding. It to make the shutdown hurt for the House GOP who made it happen. They don't get to get their cake (government shutdown) and get to eat it (re-opening political helpful parts of the government to reduce criticism) too"

So caving in and funding national parks (which has obvious public support) is unacceptable largely because it would make republicans look better. We can't have that at any cost, can we?

Quote :

"If they didn't pass a full CR without mentioning the healthcare law then you have no point."

The CR with the healthcare rider was passed [b]before[/] the shutdown. The 9 individual funding bills were passed after. I have 9 points and you ignored them all.

Quote :

"But wait, I thought you were blaming the Senate for not accepting it:"

I'm not blaming them for not accepting the CR with the healthcare rider. I am blaming them for refusing to engage in the peacemeal budget approval process that I feel has the potential to address spending problems. You can re-read my posts if you wish.

Quote :

"So which is it? Was it designed to fail or is just those asshole Democrats unwilling to negotiate and concerned with getting their way no matter what?"

The CR was designed to fail and cause a shutdown. The peacemeal budget approval process that followed the shutdown is designed to force budget concessions.

Quote :

"...which is why they're trying to reduce the backlash by attempting to re-open politically advantageous [albeit an extremely limited amount of] the federal government."

Dude, if you think that the House Republicans are happy with a state of permanent shutdown and that the individual bills are some kind of afterthought to reduce public backlash then you are insane. It was obviously part of the plan all along. How else would they have had a stack of bills already authored and ready for vote the following morning? Obviously you trolling.

Quote :

"Republicans in Congress receive more of the blame for the shutdown: 44 percent of Americans blame them, while 35 percent put more blame on President Obama and the Democrats in Congress."

That seems about right. For the most part, apart from gov't employees, I'm pretty sure most people don't give a shit about the shutdown right now. Americans are pretty apathetic and many of them find it easier just to ignore what congress is doing at any particular moment. I would predict that the longer this stalemate continues, the more evenly the blame will be shared. It seems in the best interest of Republicans right now to draw this thing out.

10/4/2013 10:22:35 AM

Quote :

"Dude, if you think that the House Republicans are happy with a state of permanent shutdown and that the individual bills are some kind of afterthought to reduce public backlash then you are insane. It was obviously part of the plan all along. How else would they have had a stack of bills already authored and ready for vote the following morning? Obviously you trolling."

its incredibly clear that there was no plan for House Republicans as a whole, it's not even clear that the tea party extremists really had a plan.

10/4/2013 10:24:41 AM

actually, it's clear that the tea-party had this planned and the senate / white house never saw it coming.

10/4/2013 10:31:39 AM

Quote :

"For the most part, apart from gov't employees, I'm pretty sure most people don't give a shit about the shutdown right now."

You've got your finger on pulse on America huh? Got some polls to support this or are you just sticking your finger in the air? Because the last poll I read said 72% of Americans care, and disapprove of the shutdown.

Quote :

"So caving in and funding national parks (which has obvious public support) is unacceptable largely because it would make republicans look better. We can't have that at any cost, can we?"

Hate the game, not the player.

Both sides play it. It would be ignorant to think otherwise.

Quote :

"Dude, if you think that the House Republicans are happy with a state of permanent shutdown and that the individual bills are some kind of afterthought to reduce public backlash then you are insane."

You hear that people? I am *insane* for recognizing the obvious. Hell, don't take my word for it, read the news man.

Quote :

"With the shutdown extended into a third day and showing few signs of ending, House Republicans have settled on a strategy of trying to blunt some of the high-profile ill effects of the stoppage and to win some bipartisan votes, hoping that will give them the upper hand in the battle with Senate Democrats."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/house-passes-bills-to-fund-safety-and-security-age

These efforts are not about funding the government. You can go ahead and put a stop to that now.

Quote :

"I am blaming them for refusing to engage in the peacemeal budget approval process that I feel has the potential to address spending problems."

Quote :

"The peacemeal budget approval process that followed the shutdown is designed to force budget concessions."

*Please* tell me you're not referencing the House's efforts to try and "blunt some of the high-profile ill effects" by re-opening selected politically advantageous parts of the government.

10/4/2013 10:35:13 AM

Quote :

"The CR was designed to fail and cause a shutdown. The peacemeal budget approval process that followed the shutdown is designed to force budget concessions."

You are smoking motherfucking crack and you are utterly delusional.

The piecemeal bullshit didn't start until Republicans realized shutdown the government had, wait for it....

REAL CONSEQUENCES

80 house republicans drafted, signed and sent a letter WEEKS ago to Boehner explicitly stating that defunding Obamacare should be tied to any CR. At no point did they mention their rationale was to force a budget conversation.

You are a out of your goddamn mind if you think this is anything other than that.

LOL at the idea that these ignorant-ass house republicans have actually been plotting this long con to force budget negotiations. Hahaha

10/4/2013 10:40:46 AM

Why haven't the masterminds of this brilliant strategy to force budget talks let Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind) in on the con yet: "We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't even know what that is."

10/4/2013 10:46:51 AM