New Obamacare Thread

[havok579257]

As someone who follows the news closely, I don't recall Cruz trying to repeal Obamacare.  I thought he was asking for a delay of the mandates in exchange for a lifting of the debt limit.  It's also worth noting that Obama himself arbitrarily delayed the mandate for businesses by one year shortly after the debt limit was increased - something he said was non-negotiable during the debt-limit discusion.  Am I misremembering all this?  I could be or maybe it's grayer than that, but that's what I recall.

 

I'm also not sure how shutting down the gov't costs taxpayers $$$.  Doesn't shutting down "non-essential" services w/o pay save money?

 

Personally, I think republicans should be forcing Obama to stick to the law and implement it as quickly as possible.  Nothing will get people behind the repeal of the ACA like the ACA itself.

 

 

initially he was trying to repeal obamacare.  When that didn't work and public opinion was vastly against them they switched to just delay the mandate.  Although the government shutdown was initially about trying to repeal obamacare.  Then when the votes were not there for that and public opinion was even worse for republicans they shifted gears again to try get rid of just medical device tax.

 

Your right about obama though and I think that was wrong.  Obviously I also wish the healthcare law would go but the fact is with the votes there is no chance it will.  

 

Shutting down the government actually costs more money because when it gets up and running again it has to make up for all those services that were shut down and all those people who now get retroactively paid.

 

The problem is americans overall do not like obamacare as a whole but do like some aspects about it.  Also the problem is republicans have no alternative to it they bring forward.  They just want to repeal it.  People hate the current system we have and so will go with obamacare because its obamacare or the current system which they hate.  What republicans really need to do is come up with an alternative to obamacare and run on it, not just push for repeal.  They need an answer to the healthcare system and how to fix it.

[NotreDame]

Shutting down the government actually costs more money because when it gets up and running again it has to make up for all those services that were shut down and all those people who now get retroactively paid.

 

It's still not clear to me that this is the case.  There was one report from the clinton administration from 1996 saying it cost more (but they have some incentive to hold that pov.)

 

Back pay isn't required as part of a shut down and wouldn't increase costs anyway, but instead maintain them at previous levels. 

 

It's also not clear that shutting down and then bringing back non-essential services would cost more.  It would depend on a number of factors. 

 

Businesses regularly use similar corporate-wide shut-downs over holidays to save money.  Would I be shocked if a government agency couldn't save money the same way?  No.

Edited April 8, 2014 by NotreDame

[Socrates]

. . . . 

 

Here is a simple question, do you agree with what the tea partiers did in shutting down the government and costing tax payers more money?  You seem to be against government waste and yet the tea partiers did a lot of this when they shut down the government for absolutely nothing because they had a 0% chance of getting the votes to repeal obamacare.

 

yada, yada, yada . . .

 

 

 

 

I think I already gave you my answer.  There's no need to endlessly ague in circles.  The GOP establishment is showing that it is not willing to fight, and is capitulating.

 

 

You have not answered my request.

  Perhaps you can tell us specifically what tactics and what politicians you think conservatives should support in order to defeat the liberals.  Specific examples, please.

 

You've given a lot of very lengthy verbiage, but absolutely nothing specific, and have avoided my question.

 

 

I don't know what, if anything, Cruz's filibuster attempt cost taxpayers, and the cost of shutting down non-essential government services for a couple weeks is also minimal.  Acting as if the "government shutdown" was the end of the world is ludicrous.  There have been fifteen such shutdowns since 1976 - including eight during Reagan's presidency,and two in the Clinton years.

 

However,the size of the runaway national debt is absolutely astronomical - almost $17,600,000,000,000.  (And our government has over $120,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities.)  This is a number too huge to even imagine - borrowed from foreign lenders or from future generations who will never be able to pay it..

Unless we radically change course, this will be disastrous to us in the long run.  Government boondoggles like Obamacare will only add to the cost.

 

Yet, our "leaders" in Washington are doing nothing about this, and keep voting to spend even more.

 

But apparently, we shouldn't be troubled about any of that, but instead all get our panties in a wad over Ted Cruz and his filibuster.

[havok579257]

I think I already gave you my answer.  There's no need to endlessly ague in circles.  The GOP establishment is showing that it is not willing to fight, and is capitulating.

 

 

You have not answered my request.

 

You've given a lot of very lengthy verbiage, but absolutely nothing specific, and have avoided my question.

 

 

I don't know what, if anything, Cruz's filibuster attempt cost taxpayers, and the cost of shutting down non-essential government services for a couple weeks is also minimal.  Acting as if the "government shutdown" was the end of the world is ludicrous.  There have been fifteen such shutdowns since 1976 - including eight during Reagan's presidency,and two in the Clinton years.

 

However,the size of the runaway national debt is absolutely astronomical - almost $17,600,000,000,000.  (And our government has over $120,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities.)  This is a number too huge to even imagine - borrowed from foreign lenders or from future generations who will never be able to pay it..

Unless we radically change course, this will be disastrous to us in the long run.  Government boondoggles like Obamacare will only add to the cost.

 

Yet, our "leaders" in Washington are doing nothing about this, and keep voting to spend even more.

 

But apparently, we shouldn't be troubled about any of that, but instead all get our panties in a wad over Ted Cruz and his filibuster.

 

 

you have not answered my question and I have already answered your.  I gave you a example of what republicans should do to get votes.  Comprimise instead of being hard line on everything.  The majority of americans don't want partinsinship and that's all the tea party is pushing and as long as they push it they will not win the presidency.  Also another thing they can do is be more inclusive.  Now I am not talking about cow towing to things they are against.  I am talking about when they speak.  The problem is when they talk, they routinely say the wrong things and come off as anti-minorities and pro- rich.  Not saying they mean to say things but they routinely say things that make them look dumb and look anti-minority and pro- rich like saying things like "legitimate rape", "huckabee's comment about government being like a sugar daddy", "Romney's comment about not caring about the other 40 some % who get government money".  Also stop trying to show how anti-minority you are by finding a black republican woman and putting them up as the face of the party just to show your not anti-minority such as Bachman, Palin and Herman Cain and Allen West even though these people should not be the face of the party because they are not smart.  Stop trying to show how inclusive you are and just actually be inclusive and not say stupid things.  Does the media focus more on republican mistakes then dems?  sure, but that's no excuse to continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

 

We should be troubled by the massive debt.  We should try to fix it.  Although this is where comprimise comes in.  Numerous independent sources have said reduction in spending alone will not fix the debt.  It needs to be a combination of increases in taxes and cuts in spending.  Although republicans refuse this option and only will go along with spending cuts even though spending cuts alone will not fix the debt.  So until they are willing to comprimise, they really aren't serious about fixing the debt.  

 

Also I have issues with the let's cut spending to essential programs to those who can not help themselves but continue to give tax breaks to business owners, rich or not or increase military spending.  I am not for or will ever be for cutting funding to school lunches but giving tax breaks to business's or increase military spending.   Cause at the end of the day its not the childs fault their parents have no money.  Its the parents.  Although the child can not work a job and get money so he is the one that suffers.  Just like making cuts to the handicap programs.  I am not for any cuts to those programs which help those who are unable to help themselves.  Its not a childs fault his parents might be losers and he should not be punished for it or its not someone's fault if they were born handicap and have no family left to care for them.  Proposing cuts to these things is wrong when at the same time repbulicans say we need to cut the debt but want to increase military spending and the such.

 

 

Ok, just answer my question now please.  How long would you have Cruz and the republicans kept the government shut down and do you honestly believe a large majority of democrats would have flipped and voted to overturn a presidential veto to get rid of obamacare? 

[Winchester]

Spending cuts are never really spending cuts. They're cuts in the rate of growth of spending. Just sell off the massive federal assets. Those who invested in the feds made a bad investment, they'll take a hit. Tough cookies. There's no such thing as investment without risk. I'd sell the White House, first. Put Dear Leader in a three bedroom house on a normal plot of land. Congress can skype or meet in a sports stadium if they really need to. Cots in the stadium would suffice for accommodations. They could sell off their military bases in other countries, too. The embassies could all be reduced in size. Modern communication makes it possible for business to be conducted remotely, and there's no reason for any embassy to be larger than 1000 square feet, or so, with the ambassador doing the secretarial work, since computer scheduling is efficient enough. The supreme court could operate easily in a modest and unadorned metal building. There are many cost saving measures like these that are possible, but the political class will never take them on. I'd also stop funding presidential libraries immediately. http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/30/no-more-tax-dollars-for-presidential-lib

 

 

[NotreDame]

Or we could sell some land: 

 

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

 

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.

 

This map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government. The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:

 

1. Nevada           84.5%
2. Alaska            69.1%
3. Utah               57.4%
4. Oregon           53.1%
5. Idaho              50.2%
6. Arizona           48.1%
7. California        45.3%
8. Wyoming         42.3%
9. New Mexico     41.8%
10. Colorado          36.6%

Edited April 10, 2014 by NotreDame

[havok579257]

 

Or we could sell some land: 

 

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

 

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.

 

This map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government. The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:

 

1. Nevada           84.5%
2. Alaska            69.1%
3. Utah               57.4%
4. Oregon           53.1%
5. Idaho              50.2%
6. Arizona           48.1%
7. California        45.3%
8. Wyoming         42.3%
9. New Mexico     41.8%
10. Colorado          36.6%

 

 

 

i thought this land belonged to no one person but the nation as a whole.  I am not ok with selling land that a minority  of people want to sell and that no one person actually owns.  Its all citizens land, not a person's land so unless your purposing having every american be consulted and agree to the sale, can't do it.

[NotreDame]

i thought this land belonged to no one person but the nation as a whole.  I am not ok with selling land that a minority  of people want to sell and that no one person actually owns.  Its all citizens land, not a person's land so unless your purposing having every american be consulted and agree to the sale, can't do it.

 

Go try to use it and see if the land belongs to 'the people' or not.

[Winchester]

Finally found a government action that requires consent of all. Forming a government, outlawing countless peaceful activities, increasing the amount of money to be taken by the government? No need to obtain everyone's consent. Going to sell off land for which there was no constitutional provision in the first place? Everyone must be consulted.

 

 

The mind reels.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Winchester

[havok579257]

Go try to use it and see if the land belongs to 'the people' or not.

 

 

just because someone unjustly keeps people from using it does not change ownership rules.  its no different if i sat on your lawn with gun in hand keeping you from your house.  just cause i do that does not mean your property rights have changed.

[havok579257]

Finally found a government action that requires consent of all. Forming a government, outlawing countless peaceful activities, increasing the amount of money to be taken by the government? No need to obtain everyone's consent. Going to sell off land for which there was no constitutional provision in the first place? Everyone must be consulted.

 

 

The mind reels.

 

 

well there is consent to some of those things because you choose to live here under these rules.  its not like you were born before these were put in place and it was changed on you.  these things were implimented before you were born and your consenting to them in a way because you choose to stay and not leave.

[Winchester]

well there is consent to some of those things because you choose to live here under these rules.  its not like you were born before these were put in place and it was changed on you.  these things were implimented before you were born and your consenting to them in a way because you choose to stay and not leave.

 

 

 

I was just getting a laugh out of your bizarre stipulation that the selling of federally owned land would require the consent of everyone. I think that's massively entertaining. It wasn't an attempt to engage you in conversation. I was just making fun of you for suddenly valuing consent when you don't at any other time. Well, as long as it's the magical goobermintsupergoodpeople making the rules. That's what I imagine you calling them, but without any sense of irony. I imagine your eyes kind of glazing over, as if thinking about being told what to do by a bunch of people in a room with too much wood paneling causes your body to produce a flood of hormones.

 

If I were a politician, I'd invest countless tax dollars in attempting to either clone you or develop a serum from your genes that could thereby infect the masses. You're the perfect serf.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Winchester

[havok579257]

I was just getting a laugh out of your bizarre stipulation that the selling of federally owned land would require the consent of everyone. I think that's massively entertaining. It wasn't an attempt to engage you in conversation. I was just making fun of you for suddenly valuing consent when you don't at any other time. Well, as long as it's the magical goobermintsupergoodpeople making the rules. That's what I imagine you calling them, but without any sense of irony. I imagine your eyes kind of glazing over, as if thinking about being told what to do by a bunch of people in a room with too much wood paneling causes your body to produce a flood of hormones.

 

If I were a politician, I'd invest countless tax dollars in attempting to either clone you or develop a serum from your genes that could thereby infect the masses. You're the perfect serf.

 

 

and when don't i value consent?  

 

sorry but if you choose to stay somewhere where the norm is already accepted your consenting in a way.  if your against the norm you essential have only a few options.

 

1. leave

2. refuse to do the norm and pay the price(not saying I advocate what punishment would happen, just stating it will happen)

3. work to change the norm and in this case that means changing the law which means getting the majority of politcians to agree with you and the majority of citizens to agree with you

[Winchester]

and when don't i value consent?  

 

sorry but if you choose to stay somewhere where the norm is already accepted your consenting in a way.  if your against the norm you essential have only a few options.

 

1. leave

2. refuse to do the norm and pay the price(not saying I advocate what punishment would happen, just stating it will happen)

3. work to change the norm and in this case that means changing the law which means getting the majority of politcians to agree with you and the majority of citizens to agree with you

If the government didn't obtain full consent at the time of its founding, then it was not legitimate. It doesn't become legitimate with subsequent generations, who have been given a choice between obedience and violence. Most people will submit to an attacker. That doesn't make the attacker's actions legitimate. The federal government was founded with the consent of the few and then imposed on everyone. It claims to rule based on consent, and that claim is clearly false. That I choose the path that doesn't result in increased suffering does not make their claims legitimate.

 

When enough people decide they will not be ordered around, the political class will have no choice but to relent. In the meantime, they will commit violence and marginalize people who do not obey in the attempt to maintain their power. I think it will be a slow change, the civilizing of society. We at least see the drive in large swaths fighting for marriage equality, ending prohibition, reforming immigration, and generally reducing the violation of human rights in the name of personal preferences. These objectives are not always motivated by a rejection of the state, but if the DEA, for instance, is abolished, the increase in liberty will be good.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

Edited April 10, 2014 by Winchester

[havok579257]

If the government didn't obtain full consent at the time of its founding, then it was not legitimate. It doesn't become legitimate with subsequent generations, who have been given a choice between obedience and violence. Most people will submit to an attacker. That doesn't make the attacker's actions legitimate. The federal government was founded with the consent of the few and then imposed on everyone. It claims to rule based on consent, and that claim is clearly false. That I choose the path that doesn't result in increased suffering does not make their claims legitimate.

 

When enough people decide they will not be ordered around, the political class will have no choice but to relent. In the meantime, they will commit violence and marginalize people who do not obey in the attempt to maintain their power. I think it will be a slow change, the civilizing of society. We at least see the drive in large swaths fighting for marriage equality, ending prohibition, reforming immigration, and generally reducing the violation of human rights in the name of personal preferences. These objectives are not always motivated by a rejection of the state, but if the DEA, for instance, is abolished, the increase in liberty will be good.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

 

 

i didn't claim the government was legitiment.  I just claimed your consenting is a form because you choose to stay.  You may claim forced consent but its still a form of consent.

 

I guess you have more faith then I do in american citizens.  I don't think a change is ever coming because the majority don't agree with your train of thought.  Not saying your wrong just stating the majority don't see it that way.  And without a majority, it will never change.  I have no faith the majority will ever overthrow the political class in this country.  I believe what might happen is the people form a different political class than what we have today but I believe the majority will never try and over throw the political class as a whole.

[Winchester]

i didn't claim the government was legitiment.  I just claimed your consenting is a form because you choose to stay.  You may claim forced consent but its still a form of consent.

 

 

I believe I covered that.

 

It's no more consent than giving a wallet to a mugger is consent.

[Socrates]

you have not answered my question and I have already answered your.  I gave you a example of what republicans should do to get votes.  Comprimise instead of being hard line on everything. 

 

Evidently, you don't understand the meaning of the word "specific."  Generally calling for more compromise and not "being hard line on everything" is incredibly vague.

 

The GOP leadership has compromised itself away on pretty much everything, and basically given Obama and the Dems everything they want.  They gave up on Obamacare with barely a fight, and agreed to raise the debt ceiling and continue spending at even higher rates than before.

Really, how much more compromise do you want?

 

And you've given me a list of more Republicans you don't like, when I asked for which politicians you think we should be supporting.  Surely, there's somebody out there you think worthy of support.

Since you like compromise so much, McCain, Boehner, McConnell,etc. should be right up your alley.

Your types are currently in charge of the Republican Party.  You should be happy.

 

And Obama, Reid and the Dems refuse to compromise on anything, and they're setting the agenda.  But you're upset with the Tea Party instead.

 

 

We should be troubled by the massive debt.  We should try to fix it.  Although this is where comprimise comes in.  Numerous independent sources have said reduction in spending alone will not fix the debt.  It needs to be a combination of increases in taxes and cuts in spending.  Although republicans refuse this option and only will go along with spending cuts even though spending cuts alone will not fix the debt.  So until they are willing to comprimise, they really aren't serious about fixing the debt.  

 . . . . 

 

Again, the Republicans have already compromised to the point of capitulation.  They agreed to raise the debt ceiling (which means agreeing to increase the rate of spending and not cut anything).  Nothing's getting cut.

 

Raising taxes is not without problems, as it weakens the economy, and will lead to more unemployment and poverty.  However, our debt is so massive that even if we taxed all the super-rich at 100% rates, it would barely make a dent in the debt at our rate of spending.

Those politicians in both parties who can find nothing to cut, and who want to keep growing government, are not serious.

 

When the Republicans want to spend like drunken sailors, and the Democrats want to spend even more, crying about how we need more "compromise" is senseless.

 

 

Ok, just answer my question now please.  How long would you have Cruz and the republicans kept the government shut down and do you honestly believe a large majority of democrats would have flipped and voted to overturn a presidential veto to get rid of obamacare? 

 

 

Frankly, if it were up to me, I'd keep non-essential government services shut down permanently.  If they're not essential, they're not needed, and are wasting money.

 

While the Democrats may not flip, the Republicans need to send a strong clear message, draw a line in the sand, and make it know to voters exactly where they stand on Obamacare, and why.  It's a long fight, which won't be won overnight.  The leadership has not made any serious moves to oppose Obamacare, and many - who ran on the promise to fight to repeal Obamacare - are now backing out, and talking of "fixing it"  - i.e. keeping and tinkering with it.  This begs the question of whether many Republicans will vote to repeal Obamacare if they do get the majority.  

I'm not holding my breath - like you, they prefer "compromise" and big government.

 

Unless you can come up with something positive to contribute (as opposed to just more ranting about how much you hate Tea Partiers), I'm done wasting time with you.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Socrates

[CrossCuT]

[Anastasia13]

Yeah then how do you explain Muslims being exempted? 

I thought that turn out to be false, that they were not exempted.

[Anastasia13]

just because someone unjustly keeps people from using it does not change ownership rules.  its no different if i sat on your lawn with gun in hand keeping you from your house.  just cause i do that does not mean your property rights have changed.

Nevada, anyone?