Gubment Shutdown

Usdk · **Posted:** Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:28 pm

I didn't even see a post by mayo.

Yuratuhl · **Posted:** Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:49 pm

Alright, here we go.

The ACA will be (and is) funded and operational regardless of whether the federal government is funded. It passed years ago, withstood constitutional challenge, and survived dozens of targeted efforts to repeal it before becoming fully instated. Whether it works or not is clearly not tied to the funding of the federal government. It has no business being attached to the budget. The attempt to defund it has zero effect on the rest of the federal budget because spoilers, the money for it is already there. This isn't a budgetary concern, it's simple vindictiveness. And while you (and certain Republican congressmen) claim that the ACA is this unpopular monolith, it's pretty obvious to anyone who has signed up/tried to sign up that it's so popular the servers are down. This is, to use Aestu's favorite term, the basest cognitive dissonance. It's also dereliction of duty.

For all of Harry Reid's flaws (and they are numerous), he's doing something right for once. The ACA defunding has no business riding on the congressional appropriations authorization for governmental functions. There's nothing to meet halfway on, one side is just blatantly wrong.

It's okay though. I'm already seeing and hearing more and more conservatives switch away from "Obamacare" language in favor of the more neutral "ACA." In 10 years, when everyone's happily covered and enjoying the ability to not die, you clowns will be saying this was your idea from the start.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:15 pm

Yuratuhl wrote:

Alright, here we go.

The ACA will be (and is) funded and operational regardless of whether the federal government is funded. It passed years ago, withstood constitutional challenge, and survived dozens of targeted efforts to repeal it before becoming fully instated.

I don't dispute that.

Yuratuhl wrote:

Whether it works or not is clearly not tied to the funding of the federal government.

It's going to fail on its own merits, but that's not going to happen in the first few months. Since I'm trying to be fair about it, I'd also acknowledge that I'm no fan of the people who are giddily pointing out problems with the implementation in the first few days. It's a huge program, and even with responsible planning there were going to be some issues to address.

Yuratuhl wrote:

It has no business being attached to the budget.

I'm going to disagree with you on this. The ACA was passed using budget procedures, namely reconciliation, and as such should be subject to being altered and/or repealed using those same methods/procedures.

Yuratuhl wrote:

The attempt to defund it has zero effect on the rest of the federal budget because spoilers, the money for it is already there.

The money may be there for the ACA, but there isn't a budget for anything, and there hasn't been for several years because Senator Reid hasn't gotten a budget out of his chamber in years. In some years this was due to his avoiding the budget because he didn't want members of his party to have to answer for their votes during their re-election bids. The republicans have policy goals just like the democrats do. One of those goals is defunding the ACA. The only mechanism they have at the moment is the budget, and they're using it to full effect.

Yuratuhl wrote:

This isn't a budgetary concern, it's simple vindictiveness. And while you (and certain Republican congressmen) claim that the ACA is this unpopular monolith, it's pretty obvious to anyone who has signed up/tried to sign up that it's so popular the servers are down. This is, to use Aestu's favorite term, the basest cognitive dissonance. It's also dereliction of duty.

I'll agree that it's not a budget concern. I won't agree that it's "vindictiveness," and I'd suggest you're not looking at the situation objectively if you really believe that. There are numerous problems with the ACA that are already evident. A lot of people are trying to access the servers for the exchanges, but they're under an obligation to do so because of the individual mandate. People complying with the law isn't a measure of popularity. The servers being flooded shouldn't be surprising among us, either, because we all know what happens to servers on the first few days of a new release or expansion.

Yuratuhl wrote:

For all of Harry Reid's flaws (and they are numerous), he's doing something right for once. The ACA defunding has no business riding on the congressional appropriations authorization for governmental functions. There's nothing to meet halfway on, one side is just blatantly wrong.

Senator Reid is doing what the people who voted him into office want him to do. There's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with Boehner doing the same. My complaints about Reid have many been a reflection of the complaints some of you were making about Boehner. I was hoping you'd see the parallel. There are plenty of compromises that could be made that republicans would be hard-pressed to reject, some of which would strengthen the law, and I'm still baffled at why removing the congressional subsidy and extending President Obama's exemptions to everyone was such a onerous, evil idea.

Yuratuhl wrote:

It's okay though. I'm already seeing and hearing more and more conservatives switch away from "Obamacare" language in favor of the more neutral "ACA." In 10 years, when everyone's happily covered and enjoying the ability to not die, you clowns will be saying this was your idea from the start.

I've been using ACA instead of Obamacare for a long time just to be accurate. There isn't a law called "Obamacare." I may rethink how I address it, however, since a lot of polls show that calling it "Obamacare" polls worse than calling it "Affordable Care Act."

I still can't believe how people fall the names of some of these laws. They could pass a law mandating that preschoolers have to break the necks of rabbits twice a day and people would support it if they called it "The Cute and Fluffy Bunny Act."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still have a few questions about the situation, if you guys could clue me in to the thinking motivating "your side:"

1) If the ACA is "the law," and republicans shouldn't be able to change it or repeal it, why is OK for President Obama to undermine the law by granting exemptions? Should the ACA fully take effect or not?

2) If the ACA is "the law," and republicans shouldn't be able to change it or repeal it, isn't the Debt Ceiling (or any other onerous/unpopular law) also the law, and if so why should that be changed or repealed?

I think I have some other questions, but I have to go to work. I'll talk to you hosers later.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Mns · **Posted:** Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:40 pm

EDIT: I didn't read the thread. Thousands of people are signing up to Obamacare (yes, Obamacare, because the republicans are fucking stupid, more on this later) everyday. Each hour that Obamacare is a thing while it isn't being defunded/delayed/repealed means that if such an action comes out, more and more people are going to have the health insurance they've waited for for years ripped from their hands. If this proves to be popular, you've pretty much guaranteed a democratic majority in the government for the next decade because the party of opposition was so insanely dense that they put the fucking president's name on the bill to try and smear him for what can turn out to be the biggest social program since social security and welfare.

PS: A woman who seemed to be apolitical and simply insane started shooting up the capital today. Policemen were injured and had to be taken for the hospital trying to defend republican congressmen. For all we know, some of these policemen can die tonight. The best part about all of this? Due to the shutdown, they aren't even being paid today. They put their lives on the line today for the same people who cut their funding, while Congress will be getting paychecks at the end of this pay period. Fuck you, fuck the republicans, and fuck you again.

PPS: A congressman tried to blame Obama for the woman, of course, but he quickly recanted. I guess him and his entire party will just commit political suicide later.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:04 pm

Mns wrote:

TL;DR: Some republicans say stupid things.

We could easily make it a tit-for-tat of stupid things people in congress say, especially since Nancy Pelosi makes it so easy.

Mns wrote:

PS: A woman who seemed to be apolitical and simply insane started shooting up the capital today. Policemen were injured and had to be taken for the hospital trying to defend democrat congressmen. For all we know, some of these policemen can die tonight. The best part about all of this? Due to the shutdown, they aren't even being paid today. They put their lives on the line today for the same people who cut their funding, while Congress will be getting paychecks at the end of this pay period. Fuck you, fuck the democrats, and fuck you again.

FTFY

Your Pal,
Jubber

Mns · **Posted:** Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:25 pm

Jubbergun wrote:

Mns wrote:

TL;DR: Some republicans say stupid things.

We could easily make it a tit-for-tat of stupid things people in congress say, especially since Nancy Pelosi makes it so easy.

Go ahead, as if every digestible soundbyte involving her hasn't been beaten to death already. She also was never quoted trying to extort respect while hundreds of thousands people are on furlough like its a fucking gang war.

I'm rapidly becoming convinced that you have to delude yourself that the democrats are in the wrong. Otherwise, you might explode or something. You literally can't comprehend how badly the people you so desperately defend want to fuck you out of your benefits, your pay, and the future of your children all for a quick buck.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:15 pm

OK...I've been having a serious conversation about this with a friend of mine, and they've kind of talked me down a bit.

Some Guy wrote:

I see your argument, on the face of it, but I think I can explain why it's flawed.

We all agree that the process laid out in the Constitution is a legitimate way to form policy. Through that process, it is completely impossible to stop Obamacare. Obama will not sign it, which has been considered a legitimate use of presidential power since Andrew Jackson. The Supreme Court has already ruled it constitutional, they can't rule on it again. And the Senate simply won't vote to push it through past the veto. Obamacare is happening, no legitimate recourse exists short of a constitutional amendment. Forcing a shutdown is not considered a valid political tool, if it were this country would be significantly and definitely worse off, so we should never allow this method to be considered legitimate. If this were common, the economy would be crippled, and to consider it a legitimate tactic is empirically bad.

Any person who believed they could stop Obamacare is an ineffectual politician. So instead of dealing with that reality, we ended up in a situation which gained nothing for anyone (except possibly some political points for some tea partiers? I don't really know) and which significantly hurts a good many people. A politician who doesn't recognize when he's lost, and by his ineptitude fucks over the country, should not be defended.

I recognize that there is legitimate opposition to Obamacare. But the shut down was not the result of that legitimate opposition. The people stopping the clean continuing resolution from going through could have folded (because their plan was doomed from the beginning and they had no legitimate policy gains to make), but it was understood by any halfway intelligent person that Obama and the Senate would never ever ever back down. The republicans never had any hope of stopping Obamacare, I don't know what the logic was but it was not a legitimate public policy decision, it had to have been some sort of political motivation.

So while I'm still opposed to the ACA, I realize we're stuck with it...for now. How do we fix what's wrong with it? Brief list:

Harvard Law Kid wrote:

The law is well-intentioned, but poorly executed. Let’s start with the good stuff, because many parts of the law represent positive changes: coverage of preexisting conditions, allowing young people to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26, removing annual and lifetime coverage limits, and closing the Medicare “doughnut hole.” In light of these positives, and recognizing that Republicans have tried a ton of times to repeal it and failed, it is time for Republicans to give up that fight. And yet, there are many serious flaws that both parties should work together to fix, namely:

The employer mandate forces HUGE changes in the way businesses hire employees, creating a bias towards part-time work. For instance, in the first six months of this year, 97% of net job creation was part time work. Keith Hall, the guy who ran the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics until last year, said of his own agency’s numbers, “I’m not sure that has ever happened over six months before.”

If you think the above is a coincidence, consider the following report [pdf and selected chart]:
20% of small businesses surveyed “have or plan to reduce hiring to get/stay under the 50 employee ACA threshold.”
15% of medium to large businesses and 20% of small businesses “have or plan to adjust hours so fewer employees qualify for full-time employee medical insurance requirement.”
17% of small businesses “have or plan to reduce workforce due to costs directly associated with the ACA.”
Even among businesses that are not firing or refusing to hire people due to the ACA, the law will increase costs and frequently cause them to drop their employees’ insurance coverage.

The ACA will be cost-positive or neutral for only 12% of businesses, with 88% of businesses reporting increased costs “directly associated with the ACA,” and 41% reporting an increase of 5% or more.

According to McKinsey & Company, “30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering employer-sponsored insurance in the years after 2014. Among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than 50 percent.”

Obamacare is neither good capitalism nor good socialism. Wherever you fall on the ideological spectrum, unless you are a simple party loyalist, you probably are not very happy.

For the capitalists – sure, insurance companies stand to make a ton of money, and the bill was designed, drafted, and implemented by an executive of the largest health insurance company in the nation, so some folks stand to get rich. But when you look past the profits, forcing people to buy things is hardly a “free market” approach.

For the left-leaners, specifically those who favor a single-payer system, I have yet to see anyone clearly articulate how Obamacare moves the country in that direction. Is giving tens of millions of new customers and countless billions to giant insurance companies somehow putting us closer to a public option? Is increasing the power of Big Pharma now going to make it easier for politicians to ignore their influence later? Further, imagine all the righteous indignation you would feel if Republicans had passed a healthcare law that funneled billions of public dollars into the coffers of massive corporations. Then ask yourself – how is this any different?

Now, none of this means that Republicans are justified in shutting down the government. Heck, the Syrian government is still paying its employees. Neither does it mean that the GOP should hold even more votes on repealing Obamacare. But it does mean that Democrats do not have a mandate to ignore public input and criticism as we continue to learn more about a very complicated law.

Any constructive thoughts or are we just going to keep sniping at each other?

Your Pal,
Jubber

Usdk · **Posted:** Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:00 am

I'm not sure how cops are paid in DC, but all other city cops are paid for by the city, and to my knowledge aren't getting their pay cut just because the fed gov't is "down."

A secret service guy did get injured, although I'm almost certain the secret service isn't considered "non essential," so I'm sure he got his paycheck too.

Mns · **Posted:** Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:39 am

Jubbergun wrote:

Any constructive thoughts or are we just going to keep sniping at each other?

To have a constructive conversation, we need to actually have the same set of facts. For example, some of us are based in reality (ex. the republicans are throwing a temper-tantrum over a bill that was approved by all 3 branches of government and is viewed as a positive change by the majority of americans*), and some of us are in the Fox News bubble (ex. the democrats and mean old obama forced the shutdown because they didn't immediately cave to republican demands and aren't passing their bullshit piecemeal bills with bullshit names (The Save Our Troops Bill) that do reprehensible shit like gut the VA in order to pander to their already rabid base).

You aren't entitled to your own facts and reality has a well-known liberal bias. Until you agree to reality, there's no way we can have a conversation based on facts, because you're convinced that propaganda and skewed horseshit are "facts" because some leggy blonde on Fox News told you so.

In other news, it sounds like Ted Cruz is trying to backtrack after having burned down literally every single bridge to accomplish zero. We're seeing public opinion shift more and more against republicans and holy shit, NPR actually did a report yesterday on the Fox News wind machine, which was something I'd never hear from a major media outlet.

I skimmed this stupid post and I read a thing, this is the only thing I'm going to respond on, just so you know how people like you have been digging your own grave for years:

Spoiler (highlight to view):

While you have, its because of your slavish devotion to interests that only care about quarterly profits and the demonization of the same efforts that would give you and the generations after you a long, happy life for years. "digging your own grave", in this sense, means to the batshit right-wing ideas that are going to die with you.

As for the mysterious "Harvard Law Kid" (as if that means anything, Ted Cruz is a Harvard Law Grad and has torpedoed his political career in about 10 days), I don't like Obamacare since it doesn't go far enough (as do 16% of Americans in that poll that everyone keeps screaming about how the majority of people don't like Obamacare. the only answers on the poll were "yes" and "no"), but it takes a step towards universal health care, and the republicans did a lot of legwork on that.

You see, when the only voting bloc you have left is pants-shittingly terrified baby boomers, making them horrified of new legislation that goes against your corporate interested by labeling everything "socialism" works. However, we're a generation beyond the Cold War now. When you're so fucking short-sighted that you label everything you don't like "socialism" and some of these programs are actually popular with the younger generation, the younger generation actually starts to think that socialism is a good idea, especially if they're being fucked pretty hard by deregulated businesses and employers who can pay them dick (or nothing at all and call them interns while they do actual work), as well as colleges that have had their costs soar in recent years well beyond inflation and now they're drowning in debt. In fact, we're starting to see this. 49% of Millenials see socialism in a positive light, whereas 43 view it unfavorably. In addition, 46% have favorable views on capitalism while 47% have negative views. If things like giving poor children SNAP so they don't starve in the streets and making sure your insurance company can't drop you the moment you get sick are viewed as socialism (thanks to the Fox News wind machine), maybe socialism will start being viewed positively enough (especially when the baby boomers start dying in droves, which will be the best thing that happens to this country) that we can have an actual shot at real socialism, like UHC.

You have to start somewhere, and as long as the baby boomers are running around whining about the house of cards they built for themselves (and us) during the Reagan years, we're not going to see universal healthcare until they're buried. This is an alright first step, especially since if people get truly fed up about it and start demanding UHC, no amount of money thrown at politicians by the insurance companies are going to kill that, as we saw from the 2012 election, where republicans in some districts had to outspend democrats 10 to 1 to barely eke out victories, while some people who spent hundreds of millions on republicans campaigns got nothing to show for it except for a bunch of filthy rich political consultants doing coke somewhere tropical.

TL;DR - Obamacare isn't a socialist bill, but with millenials getting fucked by the nest that the baby boomers created for them through rapid deregulation of the markets, combined with republicans labelling everything that would be somewhat beneficial to society as socialism (especially Obamacare), the younger generations are going to be more open to actual socialist ideas like UHC.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:32 pm

Mns wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

Any constructive thoughts or are we just going to keep sniping at each other?

TL;DR: We're going to with the sniping, thanks.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Necrachilles · **Posted:** Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:58 am

Politics.

Fantastique · **Posted:** Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:21 pm

love it!

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:41 am

I waited a few days to see if anyone else would respond, and I'm disappointed that I got pretty much the response I expected.

Let me start off by saying I'm a big, fat liar: I'm "Some Guy." I tried to look at this situation from a point-of-view I thought would be comparable to the one from which most of you are looking at things and devised as compelling an argument as possible. I added that argument as a preface to my feigned, "OK, you might be right, now what?"

So what happened when I told you I capitulated and asked for solutions to the problems I saw? Aside from receiving no possible solutions or compromises, I was treated to yet another round of "you're a terrible person who wants poor people and babies to die." Not only could none of you take the opportunity to say you were glad I saw things your way, one of you had to make a display of unmitigated douchebaggery.

When you look at DC, think about what was demonstrated here and realize this is exactly why republicans are doing what they're doing. You can't give an inch to you guys and the people with whom you agree without a mile of bullshit about how you're still a fucking asshole and how any willingness to talk, negotiate, or compromise isn't good enough unless you're willing to bend over and take a dick in the ass, too.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Yuratuhl · **Posted:** Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:19 am

"Get fucked" is the line the Democrats should have been using since 2008.

On that note, get fucked.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:21 am

Thanks for further reinforcing my point.

Democrats started out with "Get Fucked" in 2008, which is how we got stuck with the ACA and why they lost the House in 2010. "Get fucked" isn't going over so well, which is why President Obama's "I will not negotiate" from last week has morphed into "I'll negotiate when..." (as if anyone is dumb enough to buy that). Maybe after another week he'll be ready to sit down and talk with people instead of at them.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Gubment Shutdown

Who is online