Republicans: crybabies or patriots?

[Gravekeeper]

The GOP is pretty much imploding at this point. Public opinion was against them when they first picked this battle and it still is now. The party is starting to turn on itself between the lunatics pushing this and the moderates that see this is immature lunacy. t

I mean, the GOP's argument was that if Obamacare passes it will become too popular to repeal so they have to stop it now.

Fox News is in full Pravda mode trying to spin the shit out of this now too. They won't calling it a shutdown, they're calling it a "Slimdown".

Seriously.

[mikoyan29]

the problem is that this doesn't actually stop it.....

[gremcint]

The thing is though that I don't think it has anything to do with Obamacare, it's Obama. My understanding is that every step of the way they have been fighting pretty much any legislation put forward by his party as much as possible. They even fought legislation to give some healthcare to first responders to 9/11, they filibustered it because of who it was from. Obama scares the shit out of them. Their power base has eroded so far from the shit Bush pulled and they basically been doing pointless power trips everywhere they can. There are good republicans out there but the ones in charge should not be in charge.

[Gravekeeper]

The thing is though that I don't think it has anything to do with Obamacare, it's Obama. My understanding is that every step of the way they have been fighting pretty much any legislation put forward by his party as much as possible. They even fought legislation to give some healthcare to first responders to 9/11, they filibustered it because of who it was from. Obama scares the shit out of them. Their power base has eroded so far from the shit Bush pulled and they basically been doing pointless power trips everywhere they can. There are good republicans out there but the ones in charge should not be in charge.

I so hope Hillary runs and wins next. Having to face a vagina after a black man? Their heads would fucking explode. >.>

[gremcint]

Having to face a vagina after a black man? Their heads would fucking explode. >.>

Hello 1am gutter mind.

[Daskinor]

The thing is though that I don't think it has anything to do with Obamacare, it's Obama. My understanding is that every step of the way they have been fighting pretty much any legislation put forward by his party as much as possible. They even fought legislation to give some healthcare to first responders to 9/11, they filibustered it because of who it was from. Obama scares the shit out of them. Their power base has eroded so far from the shit Bush pulled and they basically been doing pointless power trips everywhere they can. There are good republicans out there but the ones in charge should not be in charge.

The infighting within the house republicans is getting really quite epic. When the farm bill failed to make it out of the house, I knew we are hosed. When the house was trying to get a budget out 2 months ago. None of the resolutions ever made it out of committee. Throw in sequestration, the issue became became;

"we need to cut spending"
"what spending should we cut"
"things that amount to less then 2% of the federal budget. And we still have sequestration going on"
"well that's not enough, lets cut entitlements"
"Yea like that will end well"
"and cut taxes"
"and how will we be cutting the deficit then"
"they pay for themselves"
"since when?"

Republican dysfunction is spilling out. This teaparty was the counter to their demographic issues. The fix to the plan they been playing out since Reagan left office is falling apart at the seams. 2016 may be the last time they even have a chance of winning the presidency with their current demographics. Mainly because they are on the cusp of losing Texas.

They had the choice to move right or left, on some of their ideals. They chose right, and now we are going to pay for it.

[IDrinkaRum]

One of the things about the ACA that no one here has brought up, and I guess no one knows, nor do they care, is that the federal government is going to be paying for 75% of the healthcare of the congress, senate, and all their employees.

Yes, you read that right: Where everyone else has to pay for their own healthcare, and get mired into the shit storm that is happening with everyone trying to find their own healthcare, the Congress, Senate, AND President are all given a pass on that and getting the majority of their healthcare costs subsidized.

One of the things the House Republicans keep putting into the bill is the removal of that.

Now ask yourselves: If the ACA were so wonderful, why are they being exempt? What's good for the people, should be good for the people who are representing us.

I heard Jim Moran (Congressman, Democrat, Virginia) on the radio yesterday. He was denying there are companies who are dropping their health insurance for their employees; companies making a vast majority of their employees part-time so they (the companies) don't have to offer health insurance. He says he's vetoing the bill because he doesn't think his workers should be forced to pay for their own health insurance. NO ONE ELSE IN AMERICA REALLY IS SO WHY SHOULD THEY? He doesn't get it.

The Democrats really have their heads up their arses and so do the Republicans. They both need to come to terms with this and do something other than cry and put the American people in the middle. They need to put on their grown up panties and deal. And if that means not getting their own healthcare subsidized by the taxpayers, then so be it.

[Jetfire]

From a friend's facebook post (I was in IRC chat when this was cooked up too. )

Child: Mom, can I have a cookie?
Mom: No.
Child: Dad, can I have a cookie?
Dad: No.
Child: Mom, I WANT A COOKIE (repeat 42 more times)
Mom: No.
Child sets fire to the kitchen because it can't have what it wants.

This is basically the TeaParty. It's not even the GOP; it's the TeaParty extremists that are wagging the party and pissing everyone off.

As far as spending goes in general, don't let the big numbers scare you (and don't be fooled by little numbers either). This recession cycle we're trying to get out of globally has shown that Austerity measures (getting debt under control) are not working; but spending to get out DOES work (US and Canada both spent to get out, Canada more than the US, and both countries were noticibly doing better than the Euro countries that went pure Austerity). Yes it is good to get debt and deficit spending under control; but when your economy is contracting, you need to spend money to grease the wheels and get it rolling again. And while the US's debt and deficit numbers are Scary Big Numbers; when looked in proportion to the US's GDP, you guys aren't near the highest levels you've been at historically.

Getting back to the current shut down, from what I've read and heard, the GOP were in a good position coming into the upcoming midterm elections; thanks to gerrymandering and the seats coming up for reelection, the Dem's were unlikely to make many gains, and the GOP had a good chance of even taking control of the senate. All they had to do was not do something monumentally stupid....

Well, it looks like the Tea Party took that as a challenge. It'll be interesting in a month or two to see Nate's analysis of the upcoming midterms to see how badly the Tea Party snatched Defeat from the jaws of Victory.


On another board, (and admittedly speaking as an outsider), The US needs some things to restore some sanity to their elective system. Things like:

* Independent commissions to set electoral boundaries, to throw out the failure that gerrymandering is causing.
* Some mechanism to recognize when one of the houses becomes deadlocked on an issue to throw it out and send the sides to their corners for a time out. The British systems like Canada has the Gov General who can dissolve parliament, or porogue parliament if they get too crazy and either ask the other side to take a shot at governing, give everyone a time out, or just plain ask the populace to vote again on their representatives. In the US's case, maybe some way to say "Look this has been attempted X times in the past Y weeks. This issue can't be brought up again in any way, shape or form, not even as a rider for another Z weeks period." (and maybe some recall mechanisms to recall and throw a new election for reps/senators the populace feel have gone too far)
* A multiparty system might help too down there. So you don't get a Frankensteinian Macro Party made up of subparties with often conflicting goals (like the current GOP and even the current Dem's). Multiple parties could align and realign based on the issues at hand and how they reflect the party's platform. Just don't make Canada's mistake, and have a first past the post election system with a multiparty setup.

Of course none of the above will ever happen (save maybe the anti-gerrymandering issue; public outcry seems to be reaching a climax on that issue and may be enough to trigger a change there); but it's increasingly obvious that something has to be done. And equally as obvious that baring some cataclysm, nothing is likely to ever be done, one way or another.

[Daskinor]

One of the things about the ACA that no one here has brought up, and I guess no one knows, nor do they care, is that the federal government is going to be paying for 75% of the healthcare of the congress, senate, and all their employees.

Yes, you read that right: Where everyone else has to pay for their own healthcare, and get mired into the shit storm that is happening with everyone trying to find their own healthcare, the Congress, Senate, AND President are all given a pass on that and getting the majority of their healthcare costs subsidized.

One of the things the House Republicans keep putting into the bill is the removal of that.

Now ask yourselves: If the ACA were so wonderful, why are they being exempt? What's good for the people, should be good for the people who are representing us.

I heard Jim Moran (Congressman, Democrat, Virginia) on the radio yesterday. He was denying there are companies who are dropping their health insurance for their employees; companies making a vast majority of their employees part-time so they (the companies) don't have to offer health insurance. He says he's vetoing the bill because he doesn't think his workers should be forced to pay for their own health insurance. NO ONE ELSE IN AMERICA REALLY IS SO WHY SHOULD THEY? He doesn't get it.

The Democrats really have their heads up their arses and so do the Republicans. They both need to come to terms with this and do something other than cry and put the American people in the middle. They need to put on their grown up panties and deal. And if that means not getting their own healthcare subsidized by the taxpayers, then so be it.

What you are talking about in the first part is what is being called the Vitter amendment.

This is how it works;

When the ACA was drafted a provision was added that forced all congressional staff to use the exchanges. It was supposed to be a poison pill for the bill in senate committee. But the democrats thought it was a good idea and it was amended slightly. So a portion of the money that congress would chip in for staff health insurance was going to be given to them to use to buy whatever they wanted off the exchange. It was a net 0 change in congressional staffing budget, but gave great flexibility to staffers.

On a side note, allot of companies are moving to this method. Here is our insurance polices. This is how much we chip in a month for said polices, anything over goes comes out your pay, anything under goes in. If you get insurance through your spouse or want something off the exchange it can be a win-win.

The Vitter Amendment is a pure smite. Basically the money congress would chip in for health insurance would be cut. Staffers will lose their insurance and then have to pay full price for exchange insurance. In the end its a paycut to score political points in the conservative blogger sphere. Where that stupid idea came from in the first place.

We are going to make you use the exchanges, here is the money we would of spent on you anyway. Oh wait we are not going to give yo that money, but you still need to buy insurance off the exchange with your own cash. Is'int it nice working for congress.

Basic republican scorched earth policy.

For the rest of the federal government, they are on the federal government insurance package. Like most of the people who get insurance through their employer (the majority). And while I don't know the federal government chip in %. I know my private sector employer pays roughly 68% of my premiums for my family plan.

The exchanges where, and always where for people who could not get insurance through their employer.

As for the part-time employee fiasco. While their are some isolated instances of this. Vast majority of the companies doing this are the ones who went through great effort to make sure people only worked 39 hours a week. Since the new cut of for them is 30 (for ACA regs) many are trying to pull that off. I do believe its more sensationalized then actually occurring however. Most small company that would do this are under 50 employees and don't need too.

Some areas where given extensions so they don't need to do it.

Its going to be a while before we see any real numbers on this instead of conjecture. Especially since Oct 1 was day one for company compliance.

Do democrats have their heads up their ass on this one, I would say no. Judging by the number of people trying to get health care day 1. And I cant wait to see how this plays out. Their are CDC papers predicting a double digit drop if more people can afford to get a doctors note about being sick, instead of working sick.

Do Republicans, yes. The exchanges is what they were trying to fight. And that cat is out of the bag. They have no endgame now.

[mikoyan29]

One of the things about the ACA that no one here has brought up, and I guess no one knows, nor do they care, is that the federal government is going to be paying for 75% of the healthcare of the congress, senate, and all their employees.

Like it or not, they are employees of the Federal Government, so why shouldn't they?

[gremcint]

here's the thing, this is a law that passed, the democrats literally did this by the book following the constitution that the republicans masturbate over. the democrats don't need to negotiate because the law is the law.

you know what rather than paraphrase john stewart I'll just link him http://feminist-space.tumblr.com/post/62840589796

[Andara Bledin]

One of the things about the ACA that no one here has brought up, and I guess no one knows, nor do they care, is that the federal government is going to be paying for 75% of the healthcare of the congress, senate, and all their employees.

First off, the government already covers 75% of their health care costs, and they have for a long time. It's also worth noting that a high percentage of Congressional staffers don't make much more than minimum wage as it is, so they'd be getting subsidies just like every other low wage earner in the country.

Also, just to blow your mind: My work covers 100% of my health care premium. And it's a pretty decent plan, too.

I heard Jim Moran (Congressman, Democrat, Virginia) on the radio yesterday. He was denying there are companies who are dropping their health insurance for their employees; companies making a vast majority of their employees part-time so they (the companies) don't have to offer health insurance. He says he's vetoing the bill because he doesn't think his workers should be forced to pay for their own health insurance.

He was denying it because it's just not happening. There is no sudden shift from full to part time employment. In fact, the latest figures show a surge in full time hiring over part time.

The idea that businesses are doing much of anything is so much utter bullshit, it's hard to understand why people believe it.

[Panacea]

Oh, I don't deny that the federal deficit needs eliminating, but the issue is primarily one of how, and how fast.

The deficit is already dropping rather quickly . . . due in large part to budget cuts the GOP insisted on, plus the sequester.

The Republicans bleat about how people would emigrate to escape the tax burden- good. If you remain a US citizen, you are taxed on your worldwide income. In other words, they'd leave for abroad, only to find a tax bill waiting for them. ( not to mention, if it's determined you gave up citizenship to escape tax, you still have to pay tax for 10 years!)

Our tax code on US citizens abroad is grossly unfair, and recently made worse by requiring foreign financial institutions (who operate in the US, which is most of them) to comply with a burdensome process on reporting the assets of US citizens for tax purposes.

Enforcing back taxes on someone who renounces their citizenship (and people are doing this because of the tax laws) is unenforceable if the person has no US assets and never returns to the US.

One of the things about the ACA that no one here has brought up, and I guess no one knows, nor do they care, is that the federal government is going to be paying for 75% of the healthcare of the congress, senate, and all their employees.

Now ask yourselves: If the ACA were so wonderful, why are they being exempt? What's good for the people, should be good for the people who are representing us.

Let me correct some misinformation for you. Prior to the ACA, the POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress, and their staffers were all part of the Federal Government's BCBS health plan. It is an excellent plan. It is the same plan my mother is on (as the survivor of a retired federal worker, my Dad).

The ACA had a provision that took all these folks off the Federal Civil Service plan, and required them to buy insurance on the exchanges. However, Congressional staffers are eligible for subsidies. They are not "exempt" from the ACA, and never work.

Republicans wants to eliminate those subsidies, which would screw over their own staffers (makes me wonder why anyone would want to work for a boss who throws you under the bus).

I heard Jim Moran (Congressman, Democrat, Virginia) on the radio yesterday. He was denying there are companies who are dropping their health insurance for their employees; companies making a vast majority of their employees part-time so they (the companies) don't have to offer health insurance. He says he's vetoing the bill because he doesn't think his workers should be forced to pay for their own health insurance. NO ONE ELSE IN AMERICA REALLY IS SO WHY SHOULD THEY? He doesn't get it.

First of all, Congressmen don't veto bills. Only the President does that.

Secondly, Moran supports the ACA, so I'm not sure what you are talking about or what they twisted around. Some companies have threatened to cut hours or drop health insurance. I don't think more than a very few will, though, because health insurance is a benefit workers expect. Places like McD's and Poppa John's are the ones making the threats, well they really never wanted to offer insurance in the first place and the plans they offer pre ACA are just horrible: over priced and cover next to nothing.

Starbucks has promised NOT to cut hours or insurance. I think we'll see more companies following the wisdom of Starbucks in order to retain workers, especially as the economy improves (if the shutdown doesn't wreck it).

The Democrats really have their heads up their arses and so do the Republicans. They both need to come to terms with this and do something other than cry and put the American people in the middle. They need to put on their grown up panties and deal. And if that means not getting their own healthcare subsidized by the taxpayers, then so be it.

The Democrats have compromised countless times, and the GOP still keeps picking bad battles. They're tired of it.

Look at it this way. Why would the Democrats vote to defund the signature reform of their President in return for 10 weeks of funding? It's stupid that the GOP would ask, much less demand, such a thing.

On another board, (and admittedly speaking as an outsider), The US needs some things to restore some sanity to their elective system. Things like:

* Independent commissions to set electoral boundaries, to throw out the failure that gerrymandering is causing.
* Some mechanism to recognize when one of the houses becomes deadlocked on an issue to throw it out and send the sides to their corners for a time out. The British systems like Canada has the Gov General who can dissolve parliament, or porogue parliament if they get too crazy <snip>
* A multiparty system might help too down there. So you don't get a Frankensteinian Macro Party made up of subparties with often conflicting goals (like the current GOP and even the current Dem's). Multiple parties could align and realign based on the issues at hand and how they reflect the party's platform. Just don't make Canada's mistake, and have a first past the post election system with a multiparty setup.

We can't do any of those things in the US because we don't have a Parlimentary system. We have a republican system of indirect Represenation. To do any of the things you suggest means completely re-writing the US Constitution. It won't happen.

The GOP is kidding itself if it thinks it will pick up seats in 2014 by pulling this stunt (and some have speculated they will). People are getting pissed, and they are blaming Congress and the GOP especially. The Tea Party may have actually sown the seeds of the GOP's final destruction. First of all, they challenge moderate incumbants, handing victories to Democratic candidates. Secondly, even gerrymandering won't help the TP types who drive the economy in the ground with this stunt. It's situations like this that help Democrats win seats in gerrymandered districts between censuses.

[gremcint]

so what happens here, is there a time limit or what, if they don't agree what happens?

[s_stabeler]

basically, what is happening is that the government is running on emergency appropriations that cover only essential workers & the military. In two weeks, WIC stops due to running out of funds. If they don't raise the debt ceiling by the 16th of october, the US defaults on it's debts, causing damage for years to come. (every single default has caused decades-long economic hardship. Russia only recovered due to oil wealth, Argentina has never fully recovered)