Government Shutdown

[slowGEEZR]

A most appropriate comment in today's paper...

"Terrorists from al Shabaab take a mall in Kenya and say if you attack us, we will kill the hostages and it will be your fault. Tea partyist Ted Cruz takes the floor of the Senate and says if you vote against us, the government will shut down and it will be your fault. It is the same perverse logic and no snsible person accepts it or respects it."

As far as I'm concerned, Ted Cruz should be lined up along a wall and shot for treason. The GOP members are so afraid of the tea party and reelection, that they have no backbone and vote the tea party wishes, rather than what's good for the country.

 

[zaphod]

i'm just a canuck with an outside view.. As is Neil MacDonald, but he seems to make sense here.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/the-perverse...ican-budget-showdown-neil-macdonald-1.1873758

 

[slowGEEZR]

Absolutely. The lies coming from the GOP are staggering in their audacity.

 

[twich54]

Government Shutdown ??? ........you mean it was actually up, running and functioning ????? ...

 

[Kevin]

What does it say about a president who is willing to talk with Iranians and not the republicans? History won't mention Ted Cruz, Obama is the supposed to be the leader. To me, a bill funding the government but delaying the individual mandate, similar to what Obama has done for big business, and getting rid of special subsidies for congress and staff that other Americans wouldn't qualify for with the same salary, doesn't seem to be an extreme position. However, if I were the republicans, I would just hold onto the position of getting rid of the subsidies to congress and let the democrats take a vote and defend that position were they to turn it down.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Steve,

David Gregory, host of "Meet the Press" asked the most salient question last Sunday that I've heard to date regarding the ACA, which is, of course, at the center of the current "continuing resolution" fight to fund the Federal Government.

When does a law become a law?

The ACA was passed by the Congress and adjudicated by the Supreme Court and found to be constitutional. Does this make it a law? I think so. If not, why isn't it and why should it be held hostage under the threat of a government shutdown?

Paul Krugman / NYT columnist also had an interesting comment in his recent op-ed.

He argues that Obama has no choice because if he acquiesces to the current "blackmail" strategy and "starts making concessions to people who threaten to blow up the world economy unless they get what they want, he might as well tear up the Constitution".

He closes with the following. I assume the plutocrats are the "sensible" Reps and the "radicals", the Rep ideologues, read Tea Party aficionados.

"But what if even the plutocrats lack the power to rein in the radicals? In that case, Obama will either let default happen or find some way of defying the blackmailers, trading a financial crisis for a constitutional crisis. This all sounds crazy-because it is."

GG

 

[Len44]

I am appalled at the gross irresponsibility of the Republican Party, especially at allowing this small "tea party" group to control them, the House of Representatives and pretty much the entire Country. Ted Cruz is a ridiculous twit -- Sam Rayburn or Tip O'Neill would have quickly removed his jewels and he would not have even realized it until later, inasmuch they were such skilled (political) surgeons.

For all of the charging up the hill to reverse / gut the ACA, it is established law of the land. Congress passed it. The President signed it. The Supremes said it was OKEDOKE. And now it is implemented. Their misguided attacks have accomplished absolutely nothing, other than ensuring a whole bunch of innocent people get dumped on because this one party in Congress is so inept. If John Boehner would only grow a pair and tell these extremist tea party jerks to take a hike, we would all be better off.

But don't get me started...

 

[Gordon Gray]

Len,

Maybe he will be forced to grow some as we, and the rest of the Country speak.

Unfortunately, my sense is that this is going to get pretty ugly (read impactful) on our Country's economy and credit rating before it gets better.

And then next month, it starts all over again with the need to raise the debt limit. Oh my.

Bottom line IMHO is that we as a Country are being held hostage by an extreme, small group of Ideologues who cannot or will not understand the ramifications of their actions.

Pretty scary stuff.

GG

 

[Kevin]

Gordon- If laws can't be changed, or provisions within it delayed, then how has Obama managed to do just that?

As the law was written, Congress is set up on the same exchanges that many other Americans will find themselves entering to get their health care. However, the president has given himself the authorization to have congressmen and their staff receive subsidies that many John Doe citizens, including myself, can't receive, even though we make less in salary than congressmen. The president has given a one year delay to large businesses that would require them to either purchase health care for their employees or pay a fine. What gives our president the power to make these changes and give out these delays to a bill that he himself signed into law?

Whether you and fellow liberals like or not, we have a system of government with checks and balances. Certainly if the president has a right to authorize a delay for big business, then the republican controlled house has the power to seek a similar delay for individuals. If he has the right to give out a subsidy that the law doesn't authorize, shouldn't the republicans be able to write a bill to which seeks to take that subsidy away?

Congress joined the exchanges as a way of showing that they are willing to live under the same laws that they are forcing myself and others to live under. I'm livid that the president granted himself the power to alleviate their pain caused by joining the exchanges by giving back a very generous subsidy. Who cares if they got the subsidy before, they now are supposed to live under a different law, the law Obama signed. They will get their subsidy with a $174,000 annual income. I make far less, but too much to get a subsidy, and now it is very likely, thanks to this law, that I will end up having my own premium go up substantially. Who here would tell me that is fair, let alone lawful??

 

[Gordon Gray]

Kevin,

Valid points. Short answer. Don't know.

Need to do some research as to how and why those changes were made.

Maybe others with some knowledge can elaborate.

Best,

Gordon

 

[jmschnur]

Boehner asked for them as a special favor.


J

 

[Kevin]

i'm just a canuck with an outside view.. As is Neil MacDonald, but he seems to make sense here.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/the-perverse...ican-budget-showdown-neil-macdonald-1.1873758

I finally had a chance to read that link. It seems that Neil is suggesting that the republicans hold the majority of the house mainly through gerrymandering. Perhaps that is true. But I wonder why Neil didn't give an explanation as to why the republicans also hold a majority of the governorships? That can't be done through gerrymandering.

 

[Scumurculum]

I have never understood the resistance to universal health care in elements of the US community.

I live in a country where if I get seriously ill or injured, I know I will get treatment, and have so at nil or negligible cost to me and my family.

The system in Australia is not perfect, FAR!!!! from it.

But all I can see is fanatical ideology which it utterly bewildering to non Americans.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Thank you.

The USA is the last of the first world countries to adopt / implement universal health care.

GG

 

[zaphod]

I finally had a chance to read that link. It seems that Neil is suggesting that the republicans hold the majority of the house mainly through gerrymandering. Perhaps that is true. But I wonder why Neil didn't give an explanation as to why the republicans also hold a majority of the governorships? That can't be done through gerrymandering.

It's a good question Kevin, I don't know. Does a Republican majority of the governorships affect the current situation that resulted in deadlock and government shutdown?

 

[GaryG]

As far as I'm concerned, Ted Cruz should be lined up along a wall and shot for treason.

Wow, I am appalled. You are calling for the execution of a US senator properly elected from the state of Texas.

I thought this was a civilized forum. Guess not.

Gary

 

[Len44]

Here's the Great Compromise -- courtesy of nationally syndicated commentator Dave Ross:

"But there's a better way to handle this. We know who absolutely cannot abide Obamacare - it's the districts that elected Tea Party representatives to the House. It's a relatively small area - Northern Utah, Southern New Mexico, parts of Nebraska and Kansas, Northern Louisiana, pockets in Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Make those areas Obamacare-free zones. No taxes, no penalties, no regulations - and in exchange, no guarantees of coverage, and no subsidies.

We'll see who's right."

Man, I'd go with that solution! Who else?

 

[Len44]

What does it say about a president who is willing to talk with Iranians and not the republicans?

Typical tea party talking point. Not relevant.

won't mention Ted Cruz, Obama is the supposed to be the leader.

Huh? Leader of what, exactly? One can't be a leader if they choose to act in an irresponsible manner. He is in all this only for himself, and has deluded himself into thinking he is going to be President. Guess what -- NOT gonna happen.

To me a bill funding the government but delaying the individual mandate, similar to what Obama has done for big business, and getting rid of special subsidies for congress and staff that other Americans wouldn't qualify for with the same salary, doesn't seem to be an extreme position. if I were the republicans, I would just hold onto the position of getting rid of the subsidies to congress and let the democrats take a vote and defend that position were they to turn it down.

Might want to review the bidding and look at what was originally proposed by President Obama and what resulted after the Republicans in Congress mangled it half to death. Single payer was proposed, but no, the health insurance companies and republicans took this out. Same thing with the "special subsidies: this is something the Republicans in Congress put in. Please don't blame the President for stuff others did.

It seems that a small group of radical tea party folks are holding the Country hostage because Boehner is not a very strong Speaker. This combined with the threat that someone even more extreme will be propped up to run against anyone who fails to "tow the line" and hew to the tea party craziness. This is, of course, awful for our Country, allowing the inmates to run the asylum.

Boehner ought to seek a compromise with the Democrats in the House to assure his Speakership, and have reliable votes going forward, and marginalize the hell out of the these radical tea partiers.

 

[Len44]

Gordon- If laws can't be changed, or provisions within it delayed, then how has Obama managed to do just that?

As the law was written, Congress is set up on the same exchanges that many other Americans will find themselves entering to get their health care. However, the president has given himself the authorization to have congressmen and their staff receive subsidies that many John Doe citizens, including myself, can't receive, even though we make less in salary than congressmen. The president has given a one year delay to large businesses that would require them to either purchase health care for their employees or pay a fine. What gives our president the power to make these changes and give out these delays to a bill that he himself signed into law?Whether you and fellow liberals like or not, we have a system of government with checks and balances. Certainly if the president has a right to authorize a delay for big business, then the republican controlled house has the power to seek a similar delay for individuals. If he has the right to give out a subsidy that the law doesn't authorize, shouldn't the republicans be able to write a bill to which seeks to take that subsidy away?

Well, it may surprise you, but The President of The United States actually has a number of powers reserved to the Executive Branch (I think you mention "checks and balances") that members of Congress do not enjoy. Remember all those "Executive Orders" put forward by Bush? Or those "signing documents" Bush flourished as he would sing a bill passed by Congress which he did not like, and essentially stated he would not follow? Yeah, those would be a couple of examples. So, in short, yes, The President does have this power...whether you and your fellow tea partiers like it or not.

Congress joined the exchanges as a way of showing that they are willing to live under the same laws that they are forcing myself and others to live under. I'm livid that the president granted himself the power to alleviate their pain caused by joining the exchanges by giving back a very generous subsidy. Who cares if they got the subsidy before, they now are supposed to live under a different law, the law Obama signed. They will get their subsidy with a $174,000 annual income. I make far less, but too much to get a subsidy, and now it is very likely, thanks to this law, that I will end up having my own premium go up substantially. Who here would tell me that is fair, let alone lawful??

OK, which is it that you are arguing -- did the President "alleviate their pain", or did "Congress join the exchanges as a way of showing that they are willing to live under the same laws that they are forcing myself and others to live under?" You simply can't have it both ways here. I can see you are "livid", but just want to make sure I understand what you are lived about.

Regarding your concern that it is likely that your premium will rise substantially, this is, of course, pure speculation. I hope you will check back in with us after you actually know the costs one way or the other. I'm sure we would all be quite interested in how this works out for you.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Gary, that was my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the tea party is the American Taliban and Cruz and the tea party seem hell bent on ruining America, unless they get their way. That so few can hold the government in such a death grip is infuriating. They are like children, who if they don't get their way, will bring down the government. No, he shouldn't be shot, I was ****ed and spoke out of anger. As far as "properly elected", Texas has one of the worst histories of gerrymandering in the country. District redrawing is a way of life here, to control the hispanic vote. If you think my sentiments are harsh, you should read the local papers and the vitriol exchanged.

Wow, I am appalled. You are calling for the execution of a US senator properly elected from the state of Texas.

I thought this was a civilized forum. Guess not.

Gary