A Question about the US shutdown?

reply to post by AlienScience


It puts off some of the provisions. I cannot see the harm in this since nothing is ready. States are scrambling and even the Federal program is still working out its "glitches". If this is the case, why not just delay it a bit? Why not negotiate language that tables the provisions of the PPACA until the infrastructure is in place?

ownbestenemy
reply to post by AlienScience

 

It puts off some of the provisions. I cannot see the harm in this since nothing is ready. States are scrambling and even the Federal program is still working out its "glitches". If this is the case, why not just delay it a bit? Why not negotiate language that tables the provisions of the PPACA until the infrastructure is in place?

Do you think a CR is the appropriate place to do this when it has no impact on funding the government? A CR is about funding the government, not trying to delay laws that you don't agree with.

If they wanted to make a solid argument about delaying the ACA due to "glitches", they should have made a solid argument outside of the CR process.

But they couldn't do that, because they really have no argument. So they decided to try to use the CR and the threat of a government shut down to force the Senate Democrats and Obama to do what they want. All the Senate and Obama wants to do is continuing funding the government.

Please tell me what you think the Democrats are trying to get their way on? I can very clearly state what the republican are trying to get their way on...and that is what they have been trying to do for the past 3 years and that is to defeat the ACA by any means possible.

AlienScience
Do you think a CR is the appropriate place to do this when it has no impact on funding the government? A CR is about funding the government, not trying to delay laws that you don't agree with.

Maybe not appropriate but the newer language helps frame the argument that the programs are not ready, hence the one-year delay in implementation. Regardless though, even if it is inappropriate, you have already stated that the Act is already funded outside of normal appropriations (which doesn't quite make sense) so why not just go along with it for show and then turn it around showing that their non-implantation will have no effect on the Act?

Please tell me what you think the Democrats are trying to get their way on? I can very clearly state what the republican are trying to get their way on...and that is what they have been trying to do for the past 3 years and that is to defeat the ACA by any means possible.

I am not trying to make the argument for the Republicans. Maybe you misunderstood why I entered this conversation. It is of no secret why such provisions were attempted, but it also highlights that even in this situation, the opposing party (vice-versa; doesn't matter about the letter behind someone's name) will not negotiate. That isn't statesmanship, that is pure politicking.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Maybe not appropriate but the newer language helps frame the argument that the programs are not ready, hence the one-year delay in implementation. Regardless though, even if it is inappropriate, you have already stated that the Act is already funded outside of normal appropriations (which doesn't quite make sense) so why not just go along with it for show and then turn it around showing that their non-implantation will no effect on the Act?

It's a moot point now anyway, the ACA exchanges are now active...delaying it now is not an option because in theory people could have already purchased plans through the exchange. Unlikely, but still possible in theory. By tomorrow afternoon, it becomes much more likely.

The Republicans lost on the ACA 4 times now. They lost with the original passage of the bill, they lost the SCOTUS decision, they lost the re-election of Obama which was mostly a referendum on the ACA, and now they lost delaying it before it became active.

A delay no longer makes sense. They need to get over it, move on, and stop using a government shutdown as a threat in an attempt to get their way.

I am not trying to make the argument for the Republicans. Maybe you misunderstood why I entered this conversation. It is of no secret why such provisions were attempted, but it also highlights that even in this situation, the opposing party (vice-versa; doesn't matter about the letter behind someone's name) will not negotiate. That isn't statesmanship, that is pure politicking.

You don't negotiate with hostage takers and terrorists because if you do, you empower them and encourage them or others to use the same tactic.

Same logic applies here.

One side wants to pass a CR to continue to fund the government, one wants to use a government shutdown to try to get their way.

If you don't see the difference, then I honestly don't believe you on your claim that you aren't trying to defend the Republicans. At least I'm open and honest about my opinions.

AlienScience
You don't negotiate with hostage takers and terrorists because if you do, you empower them and encourage them or others to use the same tactic.

Same logic applies here.

No not the same logic and it is interesting because that is the same language that the politicians have used, specifically Senator Reid, the White House and some obscure "petition".

Explain how you can equate the two...it is ridiculous.

One side wants to pass a CR to continue to fund the government, one wants to use a government shutdown to try to get their way.

A CR was passed and the other has denied it because they want to get their way....your points do not equate.

If you don't see the difference, then I honestly don't believe you on your claim that you aren't trying to defend the Republicans. At least I'm open and honest about my opinions.

Subtle passive aggressiveness won't scare me off.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

No not the same logic and it is interesting because that is the same language that the politicians have used, specifically Senator Reid, the White House and some obscure "petition".

Explain how you can equate the two...it is ridiculous.

I can equate the two because they are exactly the same.

"Do this or else we will do something bad"

This is exactly what the Republican have been threatening for the past 2 years. And I'm sure it is the same language because anyone who can think logically will come to the same conclusion.

A CR was passed and the other has denied it because they want to get their way....your points do not equate.

They didn't deny it. They modified it, passed it themselves, and sent it back to the House. The House still has that version and has done nothing with it.

Tonight the passed another CR that still has ACA modifications in it (delayed implementation).



Facts are facts...Republicans want a CR AND they want to get their way with delaying (previously delaying and defunding) the ACA. The Democrats just want to pass a CR that continues to fund the government...which is what a CR should do.

You can try to twist it as much as you want, but the facts are Republicans are trying to use this to get their way...Democrats are just trying to fund the government without demanding anything.

AlienScience
I can equate the two because they are exactly the same.

"Do this or else we will do something bad"

Not really. The House is saying "we will fund these portions of the Government"; that doesn't equate to "do this or else!" You see none of that within your own house? No "our way or else"? You truly do not see the impasse here? Or do you only see the side you want to?

This is exactly what the Republican have been threatening for the past 2 years. And I'm sure it is the same language because anyone who can think logically will come to the same conclusion.

"I am sure" doesn't exude confidence. I am unsure how you can say it it "exactly what the Republican[sic] have been threatening..." when you claim some obscure "I'm sure it is the same language..." statement.

They didn't deny it. They modified it, passed it themselves, and sent it back to the House. The House still has that version and has done nothing with it.

If they modified it, they denied it. Reconciliation did not occur so one House didn't agree...so not the House does not have "that version"...it is modified and therefore, different and the one sent by the House was modified; it was rejected and the Senate responded as they should, with their amendments.

Facts are facts...Republicans want a CR AND they want to get their way with delaying (previously delaying and defunding) the ACA. The Democrats just want to pass a CR that continues to fund the government...which is what a CR should do.

So the Democrats don't want to play politics? Just want to fund the Government if only you would see the light? If so, I have a bridge to sell.

You can try to twist it as much as you want, but the facts are Republicans are trying to use this to get their way...Democrats are just trying to fund the government without demanding anything.

What have I twisted? You are the one proclaiming this "the democrats only just want to fund the Government but these big bad guys that call themselves Republicans don't want that".....

That is called politicking...

reply to post by Akragon


Members of congress and the President will continue to get paid. 700,000 other employees will be sent home and might not.

AlienScience

Facts are facts...Republicans want a CR AND they want to get their way with delaying (previously delaying and defunding) the ACA. The Democrats just want to pass a CR that continues to fund the government...which is what a CR should do.

You can try to twist it as much as you want, but the facts are Republicans are trying to use this to get their way...Democrats are just trying to fund the government without demanding anything.

I don't know who quoted this, but this is not true, the Democrats are being passive aggressive. They have been ignoring the Republicans and simply thinking of their views as not worth their time for a while now (which is 50% of the country).

By refusing to negotiate with Republicans because of perceived "superiority" in many arenas, Democrats have sent the message to the Republicans that their perspective is irrelevant. Therefore, Republicans are doing this. It is hardly out of nowhere.

So the Democrats are in just as deep. This is a classic example of reciprocity.

Akragon
I mean that's the way it works isn't it?

A company or business shuts down, everyone loses their jobs?

Or does that not apply for the ruling class?

Forgive my naivety

edit on 30-9-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

If a big company (partly) shutdown and only keep "vital" parts running the CEO's and manager get huge bonuses for the apparent cost reduction.

Akragon
Hello everyone...

I just happen to notice this government shut down thing happening down there in the US... and I was just wondering

IF the government shuts down in the US... does the actual government people like the senate and all the politicians loose their jobs?

Or do they still get paid?

I mean that's the way it works isn't it?

A company or business shuts down, everyone loses their jobs?

Or does that not apply for the ruling class?

Forgive my naivety

edit on 30-9-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

as mad as it sounds,no they don't loose their jobs,and yes they still get paid.OUr country is loosing it's mind.they cannot even get along amongst themselves.One can only stand and shake their head.gov shut down,what a crock of nonsense,the average person wont even notice at this point.it would take weeks if not monthe to feel the actual effects of a shut down.

The way i see it is this, their job is to fund "the government". the democrates are saying fund it all or shut it down, the republicans are saying we only want to fund certain parts of it.
considering that the country has a 17 trillion dollar debt isn`t it wise to start being a little bit more fiscally responsible?

as far as the exchanges, some states don`t have their exchanges up yet, doesn`t that in itself prove that obamacare isn`t ready for implementation?
my state has been saying for over a month that they won`t have the exchange up and running by the october 1st deadline because they need more time.
When the state of maryland, who is the number one fan and supporter of obamacare, isn`t ready for it`s implementation then it`s probably a good idea to postpone it until all the states are ready.

AlienScienceIt just baffles me how people can really look at this and say the "liberals" are just trying to get their way.

There is nothing to understand. It's am affliction of the mind called 'right wing nuttery'. That's a technical term, btw.

Tardacus
The way i see it is this, their job is to fund "the government". the democrates are saying fund it all or shut it down, the republicans are saying we only want to fund certain parts of it.
considering that the country has a 17 trillion dollar debt isn`t it wise to start being a little bit more fiscally responsible?

No, it isn't.

Because you are absolutely clueless how the monetary system works.

You are going about thinking about the national economy and the budget like you do your household budget and that's simply childish.

So if you don't allow the government to borrow from banks (who conjure the money up out of thin air, to loan out at interest) or tax the rich more nor do you want the power of conjuring up money out of thin air, with nothing to back it, to be taken back from the hands of the private banks and restored to Congress, to whom it constitutionally belongs, what exactly is it you want or expect?


THE DEBT IS MAKE BELIEVE! IT'S FUNNY MONEY. IT'S AN ARTIFICIAL, IMAGINARY CONSTRUCT.

WAKE THE HELL UP, ALREADY, PEOPLE!

neobludragon
what i wanna know is will public transportation be at all effected? like bus's, trains, and planes.

Those are ran by cities and states so no they shouldn't. Air travel will probably be affected though as the partial shutdown drags on; people will only show up to work for so long without pay until they start staying home.

I also have a question. I just saw this video. www.youtube.com...

You have already Martial Law in USA? Or she is referring in an inside in congress, martial law.. more like a monarchy/dictatorship.

But she does say "we have martial law" which it means....blablabla

your politicians, rarelly expressed that way, the last time was in 2008?