Government Shut Down Looming!

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

so who is the south and who the north this time around?

There is no north and south mason Dixon line this time. It's a war of ideas and beliefs between the right and left.

 

One group wants big government, lots of regulations, government to exist to take care of everyone, doesn't mind as much being taxed higher etc.

 

The other believes in increased personal freedoms, smaller government, less government intrusion, and lower taxes.

 

The two groups have values that are in direct conflict and incompatible with each other.

 

Geographicaly the liberals are more or less in the north east, great lakes, washington DC, west coast. The fiscal conservatives are more or less in the mountain west, heartland and south.

 

But even those boundaries are nor all encompassing. Because within those groups even the same states can have opposition. The rural areas tend to be more conservative, urban more liberal and suburbs are a mix of everything.

 

The battle is being fought now in politics where we have complete grid lock.

 

Democrats want to keep pulling the country to the left, conservatives trying to stop it and pull country to the right and in the middle are the token establishment RINO republicans that just want to keep the status quo and hang on to whatever power they can.

 

That's just my .02 cents rambling

[B-Man]

http://en.wikipedia....PPP)_per_capita

 

The US spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as anyone else in the world.

 

Could someone please be a dear and explain to me how the ACA is gonna cost more, when more socialist countries with "free health care" only spend half as much money on health care per capita.

 

The whole point of the ACA was to spend less money on health care, not more. It seems as though many are under impression that Obamacare is not affordable. The current system is not affordable, so something had to be done. Obamacare may not be the best solution, but atleast it has to better then the current system, right?

 

No , it is not.

 

There are multiple threads here explaining why.

 

Rising costs needed to be addressed in the American Healthcare system..................instead of doing that, we got the ACA

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

http://en.wikipedia....PPP)_per_capita

 

The US spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as anyone else in the world.

 

Could someone please be a dear and explain to me how the ACA is gonna cost more, when more socialist countries with "free health care" only spend half as much money on health care per capita.

 

The whole point of the ACA was to spend less money on health care, not more. It seems as though many are under impression that Obamacare is not affordable. The current system is not affordable, so something had to be done. Obamacare may not be the best solution, but atleast it has to better then the current system, right?

 

Please explain how Obamacare addresses healthcare costs. If you can, that's great. If you can't, then please also explain why the left is so hellbent on disrupting the entire system to give healthcare insurance to the poor while stripping it from the middle class. Then please explain why that middle class should have to pay for the poor's insurance while at the same time paying more for less for themselves.

[John Adams]

There is no north and south mason Dixon line this time. It's a war of ideas and beliefs between the right and left.

 

One group wants big government, lots of regulations, government to exist to take care of everyone, doesn't mind as much being taxed higher etc.

 

The other believes in increased personal freedoms, smaller government, less government intrusion, and lower taxes.

 

The two groups have values that are in direct conflict and incompatible with each other.

 

Bahahahahaha. Keep telling yourself this.

[B-Man]

Profiles in Courage

 

The Senate democrats yesterday -- "The Republicans can't pick and choose what parts of the government they will fund"

 

So they will not vote for these seperate CR's that the house sends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh...............except for the one to keep funding the district of Columbia.............................we'll sign that one.

 

Hypocrites.

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

HARTFORD, Connecticut (AP) — United Technologies says it may furlough more than 5,000 workers if the government shutdown continues into next month.

The company said Wednesday that its Sikorsky division, which makes Black Hawk helicopters, would be hit first. It expects nearly 2,000 employees, including those employed at facilities in Connecticut, Florida and Alabama, will be furloughed Monday.

 

 

Next time GOP talks about focusing on jobs...

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

 

Bahahahahaha. Keep telling yourself this.

 

Then why don't you tell me what you think fiscal conservatives want? Err What has the media told you they want?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

Why is this funny? The grand bargain idea is one that is actually good for the country. It's the only way for the Reps to save face and as I've been saying, it's the only way to address the real issue of fiscal irresponsibility.

 

Boehner and Obama got close to doing this once. Boehner didn't have the votes and Obama moved the goal posts and that deal blew up. This time Boehner probably still won't have the votes but the shutdown will give him leverage over the middle.

 

I like it. The alternative, which is just raise the ceiling and keep spending, is not great. Yet it will happen if they don't strike a bigger deal. Obama wants a legacy. So does Boehner. Get it done.

 

Doubtful this will happen now. The Reps made this about ACA so they are backed into a corner, and the Dems have all the power right now in this shutdown. Still, glad to hear that helping America is on the table.

 

Save face. That's why it's so funny. Politicians saving face? Legacy? Same old same.... They all made their bed, now sleep in it.

Edited October 3, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois

[J-E-T-S-L-O-L]

Please explain how Obamacare addresses healthcare costs. If you can, that's great. If you can't, then please also explain why the left is so hellbent on disrupting the entire system to give healthcare insurance to the poor while stripping it from the middle class. Then please explain why that middle class should have to pay for the poor's insurance while at the same time paying more for less for themselves.

 

Alot of the todays spending is "wasted" on terminal patients last 2-3 months alive. People that waited too long to visit a doctor, because they couldn`t afford it, or were afraid of increased insurance rates. If the decease was caught earlier likely alot of these patients could`ve been cured, and for less money.

 

That`s what I think the plan was anyway.

[birdog1960]

"these guys may threaten to take their mother hostage but they will never hurt their mother"http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-speaks-against-dcs-extreme-120307802.html we can only hoe this is true.

 

Alot of the todays spending is "wasted" on terminal patients last 2-3 months alive. People that waited too long to visit a doctor, because they couldn`t afford it, or were afraid of increased insurance rates. If the decease was caught earlier likely alot of these patients could`ve been cured, and for less money.

 

That`s what I think the plan was anyway.

don't believe the chorus here. there's no consensus here or anywhere on the points you make. eventually, i believe it will save money but if and only if, we can stop the death panel bs talk.. and what you're proposing (limiting end of life heroic care) will take real political bravery, something in very short supply in dc right now. initially, it's more likely to allow an accurate accounting of real costs as cost shifting is slowly eliminated.

[4merper4mer]

"these guys may threaten to take their mother hostage but they will never hurt their mother"http://finance.yahoo...-120307802.html we can only hoe this is true.

 

 

don't believe the chorus here. there's no consensus here or anywhere on the points you make. eventually, i believe it will save money but if and only if, we can stop the death panel bs talk.. and what you're proposing (limiting end of life heroic care) will take real political bravery, something in very short supply in dc right now. initially, it's more likely to allow an accurate accounting of real costs as cost shifting is slowly eliminated.

 

If someone has a lot of money, like say me, why is it "politically brave" for some loser in congress who probably got beat up in the 7th grade hall to determine I can't live? I might want to pay a doc so I can live. The "true accounting of costs" would be offset by me writing a check for a couple hundred million or whatever. I earned the money so I should get care early middle or late stage because I can afford to pay. If the government won't let me pay to try to live isn't that denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? To me it also breaks "Thou shalt not kill" which is the 5th amendment, but that is debatable.

 

 

By the way I bet if Henry Waxman walked down any 7th grade hallway in the US today, he would STILL get beat up.

[birdog1960]

Please explain how Obamacare addresses healthcare costs. If you can, that's great. If you can't, then please also explain why the left is so hellbent on disrupting the entire system to give healthcare insurance to the poor while stripping it from the middle class. Then please explain why that middle class should have to pay for the poor's insurance while at the same time paying more for less for themselves.

no one is stripping it from the middle class. but at least you're honest in your reasons for being against it: you believe that if someone else is going to get more, then you're gonna get less. i don't believe it's an either/or. we overutilize with no real benefit and sometimes with harm. stopping or slowing that helps everyone. and there are already signs that it's happening.

 

If someone has a lot of money, like say me, why is it "politically brave" for some loser in congress who probably got beat up in the 7th grade hall to determine I can't live? I might want to pay a doc so I can live. The "true accounting of costs" would be offset by me writing a check for a couple hundred million or whatever. I earned the money so I should get care early middle or late stage because I can afford to pay. If the government won't let me pay to try to live isn't that denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? To me it also breaks "Thou shalt not kill" which is the 5th amendment, but that is debatable.

 

 

By the way I bet if Henry Waxman walked down any 7th grade hallway in the US today, he would STILL get beat up.

there's no provision currently to remove a private pay option. i don't see why what you describe would necessarily be legislated out. but there are very few people that could afford what you describe. and perhaps, before they are entitled to do that, the difference between what they paid into medicare vs what was paid out shpould be calculated and settled. on avg there's a lot more paid out than collected so the odds are that the described pt will be owing.

[John Adams]

Profiles in Courage

 

The Senate democrats yesterday -- "The Republicans can't pick and choose what parts of the government they will fund"

 

So they will not vote for these seperate CR's that the house sends.

 

Oh...............except for the one to keep funding the district of Columbia.............................we'll sign that one.

 

Hypocrites.

.

 

And what will happen if Boehner lets the bill onto the floor to fund the government? Will Republicans vote for it and will it pass?

 

Yup, in a New York minute.

 

Don't be so excited to find hypocrisy on one side. Try to see it elsewhere too.

 

And stop using successive carriage returns.

[B-Man]

Back on the thread subject:

 

History Did Not Start in 2009

 

By Charles C. W. Cooke

 

 

As was the case in 2011 — and earlier this year — we are seeing from the establishment press a concerted attempt to convince the public that government shutting down in this manner is unprecedented, and, too, to convince them that legislators using a raise in the debt-ceiling as political leverage is beyond the constitutional pale. Tied to this suggestion is the implication that nobody would have dared to try such a thing until the crazy Tea Party came along in 2010. (And, in the case that the audience knows full well that shutdowns did happen in the past, the follow-up tactic is to insist that those were somehow “different.”)

 

There is a tiny problem with all this. It’s nonsense.

 

As Sean Davis notes this morning over at The Federalist, politicians have long threatened to use the debt-ceiling as leverage, and they have on a few occasions gone so far as actually to do so. Indeed, it might amuse many of the progressives who like to argue that Republicans should go back to the old, “reasonable” approach that they took during the Eisenhower days, that a Republican Congress refused to acquesice to Eisenhower’s demands for an entire year

 

{snip}

 

Other than that it rather deliciously destroys the scaremongering and myopia of the History Started in 2009 crowd, what is most interesting to me here is how devastating Davis’s piece is to the delirious claims of those who contend that the system is being broken by “partisanship” and “party politics” — or even, as the disciples of Juan Linz insist, by a new phenomenon of unified party platforms. In the cases of Carter and Eisenhower, it was the president’s own party that thwarted his request, a pesky little fact that reveals the “but the president won!” argument to be as silly as you might have suspected. Sure, Eisenhower had won election. But so had a majority of Republicans in both the House and the Senate. And they were all of the same party. It’s almost as if the branches of government are equal and they carry equally valid, if conflicting, mandates.

 

Look back into history, and you’ll find similar instances with shutdowns, too. Sure, spending gaps can happen when the president and the Congress are of different parties. But they don’t have to. Five shutdowns happened when Democrats simultaneously controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. This is because shutdowns occur when the co-branches of government disagree as to what to do.

 

That is how it works in America. Long may it last.

 

 

 

 

.

[John Adams]

Then why don't you tell me what you think fiscal conservatives want? Err What has the media told you they want?

 

Sorry Ahab. I judge the Republicans on what they do, not what they say.

 

And even what they say isn't about smaller government and less intrusion. Just selective application of that principle. You see that right?

[4merper4mer]

 

 

there's no provision currently to remove a private pay option. i don't see why what you describe would necessarily be legislated out. but there are very few people that could afford what you describe. and perhaps, before they are entitled to do that, the difference between what they paid into medicare vs what was paid out shpould be calculated and settled. on avg there's a lot more paid out than collected so the odds are that the described pt will be owing.

 

So if I pay more than I get back can I expect a check in the mail?

[ExiledInIllinois]

So if I pay more than I get back can I expect a check in the mail?

 

No. Take a number behind California, New York, Massachusettes, Illinois, & Texas.

[B-Man]

SHUTDOWN PRIORITIES:

 

Grocery stores on Army bases in the U.S. are closed. The golf course at Andrews Air Force base is open. Well, of course. That’s Barack’s golf course

 

White House Ordering Hundreds of Privately Run, Privately Funded Parks to Close.

 

 

SHUTDOWN THEATER IN THE SMOKY MOUNTAINS. Remember these shenanigans when various agencies are after budget increases in the future. Serving the public clearly isn’t their priority, so act accordingly.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker isn’t having any of it:

 

 

 

 

.

[ExiledInIllinois]

SHUTDOWN PRIORITIES:

 

Grocery stores on Army bases in the U.S. are closed. The golf course at Andrews Air Force base is open. Well, of course. That’s Barack’s golf course

 

White House Ordering Hundreds of Privately Run, Privately Funded Parks to Close.

 

 

SHUTDOWN THEATER IN THE SMOKY MOUNTAINS. Remember these shenanigans when various agencies are after budget increases in the future. Serving the public clearly isn’t their priority, so act accordingly.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker isn’t having any of it:

 

 

 

 

.

 

Isn't the Prez the executive, the main boss of fed employees? Can't he deem what is open and what closes? Now the whiners in Congress/govenors of states are gonna stomp their feet and hold their breath like little children and tell him how he manages the executive branch? Why don't they just stick to legislating. Next time cry to the CEO of Walmart to open up lane 6 of their store in Hooteville because the lines in the other lanes are too long.

 

Dude... It is called politics... Suck it up. The Repubs painted themselves into a corner.

[birdog1960]

So if I pay more than I get back can I expect a check in the mail?

given the scenario you decsribed, your heirs would.