Government shutdown: House GOP to delay individual mandate

[upsideguy]

The majority of Americans want the ACA either revised or repealed, yet the Dems refuse to even consider changes to the law.

Why don't you show me polls (or other proof) to support that a majority of Americans want this to be an issue that holds up the CRA (hint: you can not, in fact, the polls would show you the opposite - I believe its 22 v 72 as of this morning)
Why don't you show me polls that the majority of Americans want the ACA repealed (hint: you can not; and the polls would tell you the opposite is true)
Why don't you show me polls, specific to your first claim, that the constituents of Democratic legislatures want any change to the ACA? (I have seen no polls to this effect, but I bet it axiomatic that people that elected democrats would tend to support the ACA)

Even if it was the right battle (and it is not); its the wrong time. The issue at hand is funding the government in the absence of a budget. The ACA was signed into law mor

 

[WillyPete]

Show me historically of the many government shutdowns how many people have starved and/or become homeless. I'll save you the trouble... the answer is zero. Hyperbole for partisan political points on a forum claiming some disaster will occur during a short government shutdown is just plain stupid.

My point was that starvation isn't the only from of harm. 800,000 out of work for a single day represents significant harm to the economy. Completely avoidable harm. The admin time it will take to shutdown and restart the government (many thousands of man-hours across many federal departments) ain't coming back. Do you think the international community appreciates us messing with their economies, which are closely tied to our own? These are significant consequences to this shutdown.

Set aside partisan concerns for a moment, and ask yourself whether you want the U.S. to get better or get worse, and which direction this shutdown moves us in.

I never claimed to know. Please don't push strawmen - I stated what I stated that no effect will be felt in a short shutdown.

But you also don't know it will be a short shutdown. They have run from overnight to 21 days. The last one (1995) was the longest. <Link>

Do you always give such deference to the top 1% of the rich scabby bankers or just when it suits your purpose? No bloated children, no dead starving in the streets, no soup lines... anyone even somewhat informed knows better.

Did I wander into a different thread? Do you have a source you'd like to share that says this is good for the economy?

 

[Tigger]

Why don't you show me polls (or other proof) to support that a majority of Americans want this to be an issue that holds up the CRA (hint: you can not, in fact, the polls would show you the opposite - I believe its 22 v 72 as of this morning)
Why don't you show me polls that the majority of Americans want the ACA repealed (hint: you can not; and the polls would tell you the opposite is true)
Why don't you show me polls, specific to your first claim, that the constituents of Democratic legislatures want any change to the ACA? (I have seen no polls to this effect, but I bet it axiomatic that people that elected democrats would tend to support the ACA)

Polls are for those who cannot separate Right from Wrong for themselves, upside. If you need a poll to tell you whether something is good or bad, you've got major problems.

Even if it was the right battle (and it is not); its the wrong time. The issue at hand is funding the government in the absence of a budget. The ACA was signed into law mor

It is definitely the right battle and it's more than definitely the right time. The issue at hand is funding a government which has run so far outside its banks as to no longer be recognizable. ANY legislation to give this government even a single penny prior to the earth-shattering reforms necessary to bring it back in line is inappropriate in my mind.

 

[Ockham]

My point was that starvation isn't the only from of harm. 800,000 out of work for a single day represents significant harm to the economy. Completely avoidable harm.

I don't think it does and here's why I think that. Even people who live paycheck to paycheck have enough to get through a few weeks without work. Now what I just found out was furloughed federal employees CAN collect unemployment benefits.... Furloughed federal workers can collect unemployment benefits - May. 29, 2013

Given that - the people who are not working seem to be covered. Money is still coming to them in the form of unemployment benefits which they pay into and they now have more time to spend that money since they are not at work.

The admin time it will take to shutdown and restart the government (many thousands of man-hours across many federal departments) ain't coming back. Do you think the international community appreciates us messing with their economies, which are closely tied to our own? These are significant consequences to this shutdown.

That'll put more people to work and probably provide some overtime to restart things. Of course it will come back and it'll do so quickly. I have little to no interest how this looks internationally as this is a domestic dispute. The only time we should be concerned about international commitments is when our printing press stops and we still have to pay back our debts - which is another topic entirely.

Set aside partisan concerns for a moment, and ask yourself whether you want the U.S. to get better or get worse, and which direction this shutdown moves us in.

The direction has the opportunity for those who represent us in Washington, to understand their way is not the only way. That they, who are exempt and set in a political class need to reflect what the people want and not what they believe the people need. I think any action that has that effect will benefit the country. The U.S. is better off with divided government and always has been.

But you also don't know it will be a short shutdown. They have run from overnight to 21 days. The last one (1995) was the longest. <Link>

Unemployment benefits for Federal workers can last up to 18 months I believe.

Did I wander into a different thread? Do you have a source you'd like to share that says this is good for the economy?

I don't think there's a benefit to the economy - I never stated such a thing. What I did state however is that there is no harm in doing this and pushing the failed meme that some type of irreparable harm is being done to peoples lives is just untrue, and historically unsupported.

 

[Master PO]

Just admit you would condemn them because you would suddenly see the action as bad form and that your stance is hypocritical. Confession is good for the soul.

are you going to say that if the proposal to ban ammo were pushed, if would not be detrimental to the democrat party?

if you wish your party to take a big wrong turn, ...........please proceed

 

[WillyPete]

The direction has the opportunity for those who represent us in Washington, to understand their way is not the only way. That they, who are exempt and set in a political class need to reflect what the people want and not what they believe the people need. I think any action that has that effect will benefit the country. The U.S. is better off with divided government and always has been.

It must have taken a lot of practice to be able to talk so much and say so little. The way it's working is the way a republic is designed to work. I won't argue that divided government is often good, but willfully creating new problems without addressing the existing problems is not progress.

I don't think there's a benefit to the economy - I never stated such a thing. What I did state however is that there is no harm in doing this and pushing the failed meme that some type of irreparable harm is being done to peoples lives is just untrue, and historically unsupported.

Since we're sharing records of who said what, you'll notice I didn't say it was irreparable, only significant and avoidable. As far as history goes, the first shutdown goes all the way back to 1976, so historical allusions aren't very useful. Since different shutdowns impacted different parts of the budget, not all shutdowns are as significant as others. The GOP probably saved themselves some nasty backlash by passing the military exception (yesterday.)

That was the blink, in case you're wondering. The GOP released the most important hostage right there. If they had continued with the military unfunded, today would be considerably more exciting.

 

[Dezaad]

are you going to say that if the proposal to ban ammo were pushed, if would not be detrimental to the democrat party?

if you wish your party to take a big wrong turn, ...........please proceed

I will take your dodge of my point as capitulation. Have a great day

 

[obvious Child]

That is misuse of funds.

I pay x dollars every month for insurance. If those dollars are used outside of those in my coverage pool, that is theft. Misuse of funds is nothing more than theft. You are trying to weasel out of admitting that what is happening is the theft of insurance dollars.

Whatever you say.

You clearly spend 0 minutes looking at the GOP alternative proposals.

Taking money against the will of someone and misusing funds you received from someone on their own free will is not at all the same thing.

And your dishonesty is running rampant. First, the uninsured didn't receive any funds. They got coverage. You fail right there. Second, the insurance money is being taken against the will of those who it came from and used not to benefit them. There is no free will in the theft of insurance dollars by those who those dollars belong to.

This is theft and you are directly advocating NOT to stop it

Again, it's funny (but tragic) to see people like you advocate for more theft.

 

[Master PO]

I will take your dodge of my point as capitulation. Have a great day

you too.

 

[Perotista]

Government shutdown: House GOP to delay individual mandate - Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com



this is ridiculous.

you know the more I think about it I tend to agree. As I have post quite often, if Obamacare is as bad as the republicans say it is, they should just pass a clean CR and reap the benefits in the election of 2014. The GOP has all the votes for Obamacare on record now, they should just drop this and move on. Or is the GOP afraid once Obamacare is implemented, it might actually be a good thing.

 

[upsideguy]

Polls are for those who cannot separate Right from Wrong for themselves, upside. If you need a poll to tell you whether something is good or bad, you've got major problems.

This is classic! On one hand you post:

The majority of Americans want the ACA either revised or repealed, yet the Dems refuse to even consider changes to the law.

Then you tell me you don't believe in polls. If you don't believe in polls, then what basis do you have to make your original assertion?

It certainly wasn't the results of the 2012 election, which the Cons tried to make a referendum on healthcare, but could not parlay that into winning the White House (which they lost handily); the Senate (which they seats) or even, for the matter, the house, which saw 1,000,000 more votes for Dems than Cons.

Democratic House Candidates Received More Votes Than Republicans

Sorry, you either don't believe in polls, in which case you had no basis to make your original assertion or you do, in which case, my challenge in the subsequent post you would not have met, in which case you had no basis to continue with your original assertion. Either way, you lose here.

This is definitely the right battle and it's more than definitely the right time. The issue at hand is funding a government which has run so far outside its banks as to no longer be recognizable. ANY legislation to give this government even a single penny prior to the earth-shattering reforms necessary to bring it back in line is inappropriate in my mind.

You have already gone on record that you support domestic terrorism to achieve your political objectives, so no point in tangling with you on this.

 

[Tigger]

You have already gone on record that you support domestic terrorism to achieve your political objectives, so no point in tangling with you on this.

In that case there's probably no point in discussing ANYTHING with me, because I'm very much in favor of using force to achieve whatever goals are necessary in life.