New Obamacare Thread

[havok579257]

The Republican leadership could have stood firm with Cruz and made a strong unified front against the policies most of them had promised voters they would fight, rather than rolling over just because they don't currently have the votes.

The liberal Democrats don't wait until they have the majority to make a firm stand against opposition, and keep pushing until they win.

Many of the more "moderate" Republicans are now giving no indication they will actually work to repeal Obamacare (which is unpopular with most of the American people) if they do gain a majority, but are instead talking about "fixing" it.  They like big government as much as the Dems.

 

So you don't like Ted Cruz, I get it.  Cynicism about politicians I can definitely empathize with.

But what makes absolutely no sense is how most of the folks railing and ranting against Cruz and other Tea Party conservatives for their allegedly self-centered and power-hungry motives, evidently prefer to put their faith and trust in those politicians who constantly work to increase the size and power of government at every turn.

But, yeah, I know - it's all for our own good, of course.

 

But not to worry, your beloved big-spending, big gov politicians are still in power (in both parties), so you can chill out.

 

 

what would have standing with cruz accomplished other than cost tax payers more money?  seriously, how much sense does it make?  should they have just kept the government shut down until election season?  should they have just cost tax payers billions of dollars by then?  at what point do you, "you" realize their was a 0% chance of overturning obamacare.  so now your ok with tea party republicans shutting down the government and costing tax payers lots or money just so long as its not obama doing it?  the only thing the tea party did or even could accomplish was to cost tax payers more money by shutting down the government.  that's it.  maybe your for politicians who grandstand, who waste massive amounts of tax payer money and who only care about getting media coverage but not me.

 

cruz is power hungry.  he's not the champion of the little people.  he's just like all other politicians, they only care about themselves and re-election.  cruz can pander to his base because that really only what makes up his district.  so as long as he does stuff like this, even though it makes the country worse, he's ok with it because his base will re-elect him because he is extreme right.  

[God the Father]

The Republican leadership could have stood firm with Cruz and made a strong unified front against the policies most of them had promised voters they would fight, rather than rolling over just because they don't currently have the votes.

The liberal Democrats don't wait until they have the majority to make a firm stand against opposition, and keep pushing until they win.

Many of the more "moderate" Republicans are now giving no indication they will actually work to repeal Obamacare (which is unpopular with most of the American people) if they do gain a majority, but are instead talking about "fixing" it.  They like big government as much as the Dems.

 

So you don't like Ted Cruz, I get it.  Cynicism about politicians I can definitely empathize with.

But what makes absolutely no sense is how most of the folks railing and ranting against Cruz and other Tea Party conservatives for their allegedly self-centered and power-hungry motives, evidently prefer to put their faith and trust in those politicians who constantly work to increase the size and power of government at every turn.

But, yeah, I know - it's all for our own good, of course.

 

But not to worry, your beloved big-spending, big gov politicians are still in power (in both parties), so you can chill out.

 

Thanks to you and Havok for maintaining a mission-focus when it comes to this thread. Havok in particular for having the courage to be wrong  :P <3

 

Sorry to Crosscut for being on this board when the other 99.9% of the internet would be way more receptive to your angle. The "liberal social programs actually do more to reduce abortion" argument is something I've heard before, and it's seductive, but it ignores the widely held belief that impoverished women receive a financial incentive to carry children to term. There's a debate about this, with many liberal sources citing a study that families on welfare are no bigger and have an equal birthrate as those not on welfare.

 

Poor black women have a lot of abortions, despite that they (along with poor white and asian women) receive an allowance for each child in all but 20 states (these are states with "family caps" set at an arbitrary number of children, for which mothers no longer receive a pay increase...studies determining the effectiveness of these programs/their effect on abortion demand are inconclusive). Your argument would seem to be that this allowance should be increased? To what?

 

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfaremothers.htm

http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/publication-1/0166.pdf

 

My opposition to every kind of welfare is ideological and not mathematical or practical, so I don't have a huge investment in this argument.

[Socrates]

what would have standing with cruz accomplished other than cost tax payers more money?   . . . blah, blah, blah

 

It would have at least sent a message of unity, and let us know exactly where these politicians stand on this issue, and would be an opportunity to clearly get the message out and perhaps rally more support for the cause, so perhaps they can actually repeal Obamacare when they do get enough votes.

Instead, a number of Republicans actually voted for Obamacare, and many are now talking about "fixing" Obamacare, rather than repealing the monstrosity.  In short, they're not putting up any kind of real fight, but capitulating.

 

The liberal Democrats pushing socialized healthcare did not wait until they had enough votes to aggressively push their agenda.

Bottom line is the Dems were/are willing to stand firm and fight on this, while most of the GOP is not.  If you aren't willing to fight, you lose.

 

Also, it's not the Tea Partiers, but the "mainstream" Republicans (along with the Dems) who are voting to raise the debt ceiling, and borrow and spend ever increasing amounts of federal dollars.

 

And keep in mind that back in '79/'80 the members of the GOP establishment were saying that Reagan was too far-right and "extreme" to have any chance of winning.

 

 

You've already said plenty about how much you don't like Ted Cruz.  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. (Though, let's be honest, I've never seen you ever argue a conservative position, other than on abortion.)  

 

Are congressman only to take a stand only after they already have majority votes?

Edited April 8, 2014 by Socrates

[havok579257]

It would have at least sent a message of unity, and let us know exactly where these politicians stand on this issue, and would be an opportunity to clearly get the message out and perhaps rally more support for the cause, so perhaps they can actually repeal Obamacare when they do get enough votes.

Instead, a number of Republicans actually voted for Obamacare, and many are now talking about "fixing" Obamacare, rather than repealing the monstrosity.  In short, they're not putting up any kind of real fight, but capitulating.

 

The liberal Democrats pushing socialized healthcare did not wait until they had enough votes to aggressively push their agenda.

Bottom line is the Dems were/are willing to stand firm and fight on this, while most of the GOP is not.  If you aren't willing to fight, you lose.

 

Also, it's not the Tea Partiers, but the "mainstream" Republicans (along with the Dems) who are voting to raise the debt ceiling, and borrow and spend ever increasing amounts of federal dollars.

 

And keep in mind that back in '79/'80 the members of the GOP establishment were saying that Reagan was too far-right and "extreme" to have any chance of winning.

 

 

You've already said plenty about how much you don't like Ted Cruz.  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. (Though, let's be honest, I've never seen you ever argue a conservative position, other than on abortion.)  

 

Are congressman only to take a stand only after they already have majority votes?

what part of they don't have enough votes don't you understand?  To repeal obamacare and go over obama's head to do it they need a super majority of votes in both houses of congress.  to over turn a presidential veto(which is what would have happened) .  So you actually think by standing together the republicans could have not got only all the republicans to vote for repeal but a ton of democrats also?  You honestly think a large portion of democrats would have voted for repeal?  Cause that is what would be needed.  I think is asanine to assume a ton of democrats would go against their own party nationally and vote to repeal the law, even so far as to nationally oppose the president.  Sure, maybe a small number would do this, although that is doubtful.  Although to get the votes to over turn a veto, you would need so many democrats to go against obama its not going to happen.

 

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.

 

I take conservative positions on education(school vouchers), contraception being paid for by tax money, the government pushing contraceptions at all, abortion, prayer in school, gay marriage and some of their deficit ideas(not the vast majority but some).  I don't agree with they positions on immigration, reduction of tax money to the poor or helpless in exchange for tax breaks for any business or tax cuts across the board, their stance on labor unions. their stance on the death penalty, their belief that racism/sexism is not a problem anymore or that by simple hard work you can accomplish the american dream, their stance that ALL government is bad, that eliminating debt is the most important thing to do even if it adversly effects the poor and helpless in the process, their views that unregulated capitalism would be the absolute best and their opinion that their should be little to no government regulations, even if it means business owners deny people from their business because of race, gender, religion or such(not sexual orientation).  

 

So as you can see, I fall in the middle of the both sides.  Neither side is right in all they do and say and neither side will form a utopia if in power as history has sown time and again.  In america, with the republic that we live in, we need conservative and liberal ideas to succeed.  To have just 1 or the other will cause failure.  Its happened in the past over and over again.  It has never happened that when one group had all the power they created a utopia and it will never happen.  You need both conservative and liberal ideas to run a successful american republic.

 

As to what politicians I think people should support to defeat the democrats, its simple really.  Support politicians who will reach across the isle to comprimise.  Right now the majority or america is either left leaning or a centerist.  The current tea party model of we refuse to comprimise does not appeal to the majority of america.  The majority of independents do not want hard line politicians who refuse to comprimise at all.  As to me, its a stupid position to refuse to comprimise on positions(obviously I am talking about current debated policies in politics).  Without comprimise they republicans will never hold the presidency again or the majority of congress. The majority of americans don't want hard line politicians who won't budge at all, even if its for the betterment of the united states.  They want comprimise to help make the country better.

[NotreDame]

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.

 

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.

[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.