Government Shutdown

[carlfense]

. . . shut down the whole government which is massively inefficient and hurts a lot of people in a lot of ways, plus denies support to obamacare so that our medical system remains sh**ty.

The somewhat untold story of this whole charade is that even if the Republicans choose to shut down the government Obamacare funding will be basically untouched.

 

Even if the government were to temporarily close down later this year, ObamaCare would still live on, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service.

 

The nonpartisan government agency said this week that even if lawmakers fail to pass legislation to fund the government, it would not prevent the bulk of the Affordable Care Act from taking effect. Some conservative Republican lawmakers have floated the idea of a government shutdown as a way to block the law and force President Obama to ultimately scrap it.

http://theweek.com/a...-kill-obamacare

[EbylHusker]

That's the best part about all this. Any potential shutdown wouldn't do much at all to Obamacare. Oops.

[tschu]

Even better. Republicans!

[krill]

At least we got a 20 hour filibuster that wasn't really a filibusterer, filled with readings of Green Eggs and Ham, and comparing health care reform to appeasement of Nazi Germany out of this. If anyone wasn't quite sure that congress is dysfunctional circus that's less popular that herpes, Al Qaeda, or death by drawn and quartering.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

At least we got a 20 hour filibuster that wasn't really a filibusterer, filled with readings of Green Eggs and Ham, and comparing health care reform to appeasement of Nazi Germany out of this. If anyone wasn't quite sure that congress is dysfunctional circus that's less popular that herpes, Al Qaeda, or death by drawn and quartering.

 

Hey him reading a bedtime story to his kids was neat, but yeah I'm with you on the rest.

 

In the end it doesn't matter. Obamacare will get fully implemented (well except for the parts they just decide to not do), once its done, it wont matter, the guys with the Rs will fuss but in the end they now have more power, if the plan starts to fail they will just throw more money at it. When people die because of bureaucratic BS, they will all act shocked, over haul it (again more power), fund it more etc.... In 10 years most of us will not be any better off

[TGHusker]

I think the likely outcome will be:

1. Delay in full implementation. If the dems were smart they would agree to delay implementation as the general public sees all of the exemptions, and delays in implementation given to some sectors. Too few states have initiated the exchanges and it appears the feds aren't ready to pull it together in time

The chances of that are very slim to none . . . and probably leaning towards none, IMO.

 

2. If the general public ends up spending more for HC under ACA, then we will see that as a political issue in 2013

3. Repubs then take control of both house and Senate - wt a mandate to do something about ACA - dismantle it in full or revise it - keeping the good and implementing new policies.

Why would the Republicans have a mandate regarding the ACA in 2014? It was a certainly a focus in the 2012 elections. Doesn't that give the Dems a mandate now?

Hi Carl, it becomes a manadate IF - the public finds implementation and policy to be burdensome, costly and worse than their current coverage. In 2012 - everything was still 'in theory' - just words for or against. In theory this is a good plan, in theory this is a bad plan. 2014 we will experience the benefits or the burdens of ACA. That is what will set 2014 apart from 2012.

[carlfense]

Hi Carl, it becomes a manadate IF - the public finds implementation and policy to be burdensome, costly and worse than their current coverage. In 2012 - everything was still 'in theory' - just words for or against. In theory this is a good plan, in theory this is a bad plan. 2014 we will experience the benefits or the burdens of ACA. That is what will set 2014 apart from 2012.

Do you or don't you think that the electoral victory in 2012 gave the Democratic Party a mandate (for the time being) on Obamacare?

 

I think that if Romney had won in 2012 and the Republicans had won the Senate that a lot of ACA opponents would be arguing that there was a mandate to get rid of Obamacare.

 

I'm not sure that there is a logically coherent argument to be made trying to reconcile those two (if, in fact, you think that the 2012 elections were not a mandate for Democrats.)

[rawhide]

Gallup along:

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164591/americans-belief-gov-powerful-record-level.aspx

[carlfense]

House Republicans have planned for weeks now to try to avert a government shutdown by promising their members an epic fight over the debt ceiling. Yesterday they began circulating their initial ransom list of demands that President Obama and Senate Democrats must meet or else watch the world economy melt down. It is, uh, rather extensive, and really needs to be read in full to appreciate its megalomaniacal ambition: [...]

 

Does that list sound vaguely familiar? It's Mitt Romney's 2012 economic plan. Almost word for word, in fact. [...]

 

The fact that a major party could even propose anything like this is a display of astonishing contempt for democratic norms. Republicans ran on this plan and lost by 5 million votes. They also lost the Senate and received a million fewer votes in the House but held control owing to favorable district lines. Is there an example in American history of a losing party issuing threats to force the majority party to implement its rejected agenda?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/09/republican-ransom-demand-implement-romney-plan.html

[TGHusker]

Hi Carl, it becomes a manadate IF - the public finds implementation and policy to be burdensome, costly and worse than their current coverage. In 2012 - everything was still 'in theory' - just words for or against. In theory this is a good plan, in theory this is a bad plan. 2014 we will experience the benefits or the burdens of ACA. That is what will set 2014 apart from 2012.

Do you or don't you think that the electoral victory in 2012 gave the Democratic Party a mandate (for the time being) on Obamacare?

 

I think that if Romney had won in 2012 and the Republicans had won the Senate that a lot of ACA opponents would be arguing that there was a mandate to get rid of Obamacare.

 

I'm not sure that there is a logically coherent argument to be made trying to reconcile those two (if, in fact, you think that the 2012 elections were not a mandate for Democrats.)

2012 was a status quo election- no mandate for anyone - many political commentators thought this as well at the time. A incumbent President doesn't have a mandate unless he wins on a much larger scale - Reagan was the last to do so. It is up to the challenger to convince voters to change the status quo - we typically don't unless a good argument is presented against the incumbent (house, senate, even Presidential elections reflect this over the years) Repubs ran a weak campaign - too weak to convince people to vote differently. When Romney argued against ObamaCare, it didn't ring true because of his Mass. experience. 2010 - change of the House was a mandate. Since then the repub have had a not true believer leading them as House Speaker - JB is a weak leader - in spite of his howls at this point - I predict he will cave. He does not articulate or communicate in a way that conveys confidence (IMO) Yes, if the repub took the Senate and the WH in 2012, it would have been a mandate as the voters would have sent a clear message for change. I think 2012 was a lull between the voter's initial reaction to OCare (2010) and what their reaction will be when it is implemented (2014) 2006 was a mandate against Bush's Iraq war, 2008 was a mandate against Bush period (and another weak repub candidate - but I don't think anyone would have beat back the media hype for Obama and the distaste for everything Bush), 2010 - ObamaCare fresh in the minds of voters was a mandate against Obamacare and the way it was pass - and other high spending policies, 2012 status quo, 2014 will be a mandate either way. If ObamaCare is implemented and the people like it - then it will be a mandate for it, If the voters rise up and elect repubs to overturn it - then the opposite is true.

[BigRedBuster]

Every single party claims "We have a mandate" after they win an election. What a bunch of friggen BS.

[carlfense]

Some House Democrats have also come to believe that a shutdown might be the best way forward. It provides, in their eyes, a relatively safe space for the showdown Republicans clearly want to have. It's visible and dramatic enough that the GOP will feel the public's ire. But it's low stakes enough that the damage to the economy, though real, will be modest. Better to shoot yourself in the foot than shoot yourself in the head.

 

The hitch in this theory is the calendar. A shutdown would begin 17 days before we hit the debt ceiling. There's just not that much time for the shutdown to play out before the debt ceiling crashes down.

 

But that might be okay. One reason Republicans in Congress aren't more concerned about the debt ceiling is markets aren't particularly concerned. But if Congress began exhibiting signs of real irresponsibility -- like by shutting down the government -- markets would get concerned in a hurry, and Republicans would begin getting calls from Wall Street and CEOs of major companies well in advance of the 17th.

 

It's a mark of the insane and reckless turn in our politics that shutting down the government so one of our to major political parties can get the brinksmanship out of its system is emerging as the sober, responsible thing to do. But here we are, greatest nation the world has ever known.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/27/wonkbook-we-may-have-a-shutdown-after-all-and-that-may-be-a-good-thing/

[carlfense]

Hi Carl, it becomes a manadate IF - the public finds implementation and policy to be burdensome, costly and worse than their current coverage. In 2012 - everything was still 'in theory' - just words for or against. In theory this is a good plan, in theory this is a bad plan. 2014 we will experience the benefits or the burdens of ACA. That is what will set 2014 apart from 2012.

Do you or don't you think that the electoral victory in 2012 gave the Democratic Party a mandate (for the time being) on Obamacare?

 

I think that if Romney had won in 2012 and the Republicans had won the Senate that a lot of ACA opponents would be arguing that there was a mandate to get rid of Obamacare.

 

I'm not sure that there is a logically coherent argument to be made trying to reconcile those two (if, in fact, you think that the 2012 elections were not a mandate for Democrats.)

2012 was a status quo election- no mandate for anyone - many political commentators thought this as well at the time. A incumbent President doesn't have a mandate unless he wins on a much larger scale - Reagan was the last to do so. It is up to the challenger to convince voters to change the status quo - we typically don't unless a good argument is presented against the incumbent (house, senate, even Presidential elections reflect this over the years) Repubs ran a weak campaign - too weak to convince people to vote differently. When Romney argued against ObamaCare, it didn't ring true because of his Mass. experience. 2010 - change of the House was a mandate. Since then the repub have had a not true believer leading them as House Speaker - JB is a weak leader - in spite of his howls at this point - I predict he will cave. He does not articulate or communicate in a way that conveys confidence (IMO) Yes, if the repub took the Senate and the WH in 2012, it would have been a mandate as the voters would have sent a clear message for change. I think 2012 was a lull between the voter's initial reaction to OCare (2010) and what their reaction will be when it is implemented (2014) 2006 was a mandate against Bush's Iraq war, 2008 was a mandate against Bush period (and another weak repub candidate - but I don't think anyone would have beat back the media hype for Obama and the distaste for everything Bush), 2010 - ObamaCare fresh in the minds of voters was a mandate against Obamacare and the way it was pass - and other high spending policies, 2012 status quo, 2014 will be a mandate either way. If ObamaCare is implemented and the people like it - then it will be a mandate for it, If the voters rise up and elect repubs to overturn it - then the opposite is true.

So Republican win in 2012 = mandate. Democratic win in 2012 = no mandate.

 

Gotcha.

 

 

 

 

Also, I agree with you that John Boehner is a weak leader but I also think that there simply isn't anyone in politics who could corral the right wing extremists. Their immunity to reality is breathtaking.

[carlfense]

Every single party claims "We have a mandate" after they win an election. What a bunch of friggen BS.

Elections are supposed to matter. Now we see at least one party trying to enact their entire agenda by holding the full faith and credit of the United State hostage . . . because they couldn't win elections.

 

I can't recall ever seeing that before in the history of our country.

[Junior]

Every single party claims "We have a mandate" after they win an election. What a bunch of friggen BS.

Elections are supposed to matter. Now we see at least one party trying to enact their entire agenda by holding the full faith and credit of the United State hostage . . . because they couldn't win elections.

 

I can't recall ever seeing that before in the history of our country.

 

But tyranny, Carl. Tyranny and four dead Americans.

 

Oh, and guns. Wait is that part of tyranny? I can't remember.