Harry Reid and Barack Obama want a government shutdown.

[Ishmael]

You're wrong.

WE will see more people purchase health insurance, when free money is available, and a person is divorced from personal financial responsibility - they tend to use more of a product. If dope was free - everyone would live stoned.

The next crash is going to be when people begin using their coverage and the deductibles and co-pays and self pay portions are more than they can afford.

That will begin the drive for single payer nationalized care.

Pretty much my read on the situation as well. Over in my thread on costs there is a host of morons posting links to what the 'expected' insurance premiums will be, which has nothing to do with costs of course. And while they're crowing about the low premiums, they aren't talking about the co-pays, annual out of pockets, etc.

Here's an interesting article concerning an 'early adopter' of ObamaCare.

Brendan Mahoney Saves ObamaCare

You can't make this shit up.

Ishmael

 

[Que]

Not to go all Godwin on folks or anything, but there's an interesting historical parrallel here with regards to the Chief's delusion.

Back in WWII, Hitler had absolute faith in his wehrmacht. When the wehrmacht was destroyed, he looked around and decided the Hitler Youth would save him...yeah, that was the ticket!

Flash forward to current day, the spiritual descendants of Adolf Hitler, the Tea Party, had absolute faith that the Supreme Court would overturn Obamacare. After the Supremes failed them, they looked around and decided the uninsured would save the Tea Party, they'd forego insurance (Insurance that the tea party folks had, of course) in order to make a point....yeah, that's the ticket!!

Your perspective is neither historic relevant nor interesting.

All I read was blah blah blah Hitler blah

Or should I come up with some sort of really really clever retort where I invoke Idi Amin or Joseph Stalin or mao tse tung?

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed by your lack of rhetorical skill?

Most southerners I know only TALK slow. I myself developed most of my vocabulary while living in Looosianna.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Pretty much my read on the situation as well. Over in my thread on costs there is a host of morons posting links to what the 'expected' insurance premiums will be, which has nothing to do with costs of course. And while they're crowing about the low premiums, they aren't talking about the co-pays, annual out of pockets, etc.

Here's an interesting article concerning an 'early adopter' of ObamaCare.

Brendan Mahoney Saves ObamaCare

You can't make this shit up.

Ishmael

I can't "make this shit up", but you sure can.

This is what the health care debate has been reduced to, folks, concern-troll Ishmael worried that the working poor won't be able to afford co-pays.

We've won.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If the parties were reversed and 80 Democrats in the house were refusing to fund the government unless an increase was made to Medicare funding, I suspect our resident wackos would be screaming bloody murder.

Of course they would. Situational red man AJ has made quite a career out of his ability to speak with forked tongue.

 

[Que]

I can't "make this shit up", but you sure can.

This is what the health care debate has been reduced to, folks, concern-troll Ishmael worried that the working poor won't be able to afford co-pays.

We've won.

Great does that mean you're going to pack your bags and go home?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I can't "make this shit up", but you sure can.

This is what the health care debate has been reduced to, folks, concern-troll Ishmael worried that the working poor won't be able to afford co-pays.

We've won.

People on Medicare don't get an opinion. They should just give a nod and a thank you to the rest of us.

 

[RobDownSouth]

People on Medicare don't get an opinion. They should just give a nod and a thank you to the rest of us.

If the government shut off the Medicare spigot as a result of the government shutdown, Ted Cruz and 90% of the Tea Party would be dead by tomorrow night.

 

[Que]

If the parties were reversed and 80 Democrats in the house were refusing to fund the government unless an increase was made to Medicare funding, I suspect our resident wackos would be screaming bloody murder.

I can't speak for the resident wackos since I haven't sent in an application for membership nor do I plan on establising residency. I've never been much of a joiner.

But I can tell you that I personally wouldn't particularly like their goal but I would understand how constitutionally they had every right to do that. Interestingly though you do seem to aknowledge that the other side only ever wish is to spend more money.

Would I then encourage the theoretical Republican president to stare them down and shut down the government as Obama just has? I suppose that would depend on the amount of the increase as it pertained to the entire budget.

If I thought that that President should then shut down the government I would have to aknowledge the truth of the fact that in fact that President is the one making the decision to not fund the governent at all in lieu of accepting the bill that originated in the house as is required by our Constitution not that any of you care about that sort of moldy written contract.

Your theoretical Democratic majority could not other than deciding not to fund the government at all shut down the government. If they pass the bill they've done their job. If the Senate or the president chooses not to go along with it then everything comes to a grinding halt.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Maybe they should consider changing their banking institution, although it's a little late this go-round. I know of several large institutions that are making interest free 'pay day' loans to government workers and active duty military. The institutions know they're going to get the money back, they understand the economic impact, and the good will they'll receive for what they're doing is priceless.

The people that are going to feel this first, and the hardest, are those on welfare of one sort or another, and the kid undergoing cancer treatments at NIH/NCI. But as Harry Reid says, 'Who cares if a kid dies of cancer?' (paraphrased) Kind of an astounding statement from a senior member of a party whose tried and true mantra is, "it's for the children!!!"

Ishmael

Hilarious! it's their fault for having the wrong bank? Seriously?

Wow, just fucking WOW..

By the way, your "paraphrase" resembles nothing even remotely close to what Reid said. By why let anything like accuracy intrude eh?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Perhaps it is the product of the Manichean way in which partisan fights such as this one encourage people to think. Perhaps it is a morbid fear of being accused of “false equivalence.” Perhaps tempers are just so frayed at this point that none of us can see straight. But whatever it is, few progressives appear willing to acknowledge that, regardless of where the blame lies for its arrival, the White House has not reacted to the shutdown well at all. Barack Obama has the authority to stop such troublemaking. Why has he not used it?

To deny that the executive branch is going out of its way unnecessarily to make life difficult for people — as many still are — is to pretend that the hundreds of such stories, reported daily across the country, are falsehoods manufactured to hurt the president. Yes, government shutdowns have consequences — even shutdowns that leave 83 percent of the government operating as usual. But, consequences or not, there really is no good reason for the federal government to send barricades and wire-ties to unguarded open-air parks, to close off unmanned scenic overlooks, to evict homeowners from their private property on public land, or to threaten the livelihoods of hoteliers whose sole crime is to own a business on an unsecured public route.

There is no good reason, either, for the government to shut down the index pages of some, arbitrarily chosen, websites while leaving the rest of the pages running. No good reason for the federal government to try to close Mount Vernon and Claude Moore Colonial Farm, neither of which it owns or runs. No good reason for the federal government to threaten to cancel the Air Force–Navy football game when there were private donors waiting on the sidelines. And certainly no reason for armed rangers to hold senior-citizen tourists hostage inside their Yellowstone Park hotel for the high crime of stepping outside and taking photographs.

As NR’s editors observed on Monday, there is a substantial difference between authorities’ barring access to sites that have gates and their barricading open spaces that do not. “It takes federal action to close the sites,” this website’s editorial noted, “and none to keep them open. This is not what an inactive government looks like, but a spiteful one.” An anonymous Park Service ranger confirmed that malice to the Washington Times last week: Staff, the employee said, had “been told to “make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

Such orders are representative of a deep and unlovely philosophical instinct. The reason that services close during a government shutdown is that there is no money to pay for them. This is why staff are furloughed, facilities are closed, and, in extreme cases, why checks don’t get cut. But what happens if there is enough money? Traditionally, the answer is that every effort is made to inconvenience people as little as is humanly possible.

Charles C. W. Cooke, NRO

 

[RobDownSouth]

Charles C. W. Cooke, NRO

You must admit, AJ, that "false equivalence" has been a "go to" logical fallacy for you and your fellow not-Republicans of late.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

At his news conference where he again vowed, no negotiations until I win, Barry lamented the canceling of his trip to Asia (Hawaii?) because of the importance of eye-to-eye contact in negotiations...


Maybe he should demand they surrender first?

 

[Liar]

I can't speak for the resident wackos since I haven't sent in an application for membership nor do I plan on establising residency. I've never been much of a joiner.

But I can tell you that I personally wouldn't particularly like their goal but I would understand how constitutionally they had every right to do that. Interestingly though you do seem to aknowledge that the other side only ever wish is to spend more money.

Would I then encourage the theoretical Republican president to stare them down and shut down the government as Obama just has? I suppose that would depend on the amount of the increase as it pertained to the entire budget.

If I thought that that President should then shut down the government I would have to aknowledge the truth of the fact that in fact that President is the one making the decision to not fund the governent at all in lieu of accepting the bill that originated in the house as is required by our Constitution not that any of you care about that sort of moldy written contract.

Your theoretical Democratic majority could not other than deciding not to fund the government at all shut down the government. If they pass the bill they've done their job. If the Senate or the president chooses not to go along with it then everything comes to a grinding halt.

So if tha Democratic House passed a CR with a rider with (oh, let's see...) massive tax hikes on the upper middle class, full amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants, federal drive-thru abortion clinics in every state, and single payer health care, and then blamed their political opponents for the consequences of saying "aw hell no!", they would have "done their job"?

Or maybe, just maybe, it's the House's (as well as the Senate's for that matter) job to pass legislation that isn't completely toxic.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

On Thursday, Boehner took that exit ramp, offering Obama a six-week debt-ceiling extension during which negotiations would be conducted. Unless Obama reverses himself and refuses, his “no negotiations” posture evaporates.

What, then, to ask for? Paul Ryan, as usual, points the way with a suggestion that would turn the partial and imperfect success of the last debt-ceiling fight — the automatic spending cuts (“sequester”) that seriously reduced discretionary spending — into the larger success of curbing entitlements, which is where the real money is.

After all, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs (plus interest payments) already claim more than half the federal budget. And they are poised to explode, eating up (estimates the Congressional Budget Office) 97 percent of revenues within 25 years.

Raising (and indexing) the retirement age while changing the inflation measure for entitlements would alone be major achievements. Democrats could be offered relief on the sequester — which everyone agrees needs restructuring anyway, since it cuts agency budgets indiscriminately, often illogically, by formula.

It’s win-win. A serious attack on the deficit — good. Refiguring sequestration to restore some defense spending and some logic to discretionary spending — also good. Forcing the president off Mount Olympus — priceless.

Charles Krauthammer

Red Lines crossed:

No negotiations!
No piecemeal continuing resolutions.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Talks on Thursday were productive only because the House GOP has taken the ACA defunding off the table in debt ceiling talks.

Defunding or delaying Obamacare were demands in legislation the House repeatedly sent to the Democratic-controlled Senate, only to see it die there.

Apparently, it's now dead in the House, too.

No surprise, it was a fight only a few GOP House members wanted, and that nobody thought they could win.

 

[RobDownSouth]

At his news conference where he again vowed, no negotiations until I win, Barry lamented the canceling of his trip to Asia (Hawaii?) because of the importance of eye-to-eye contact in negotiations...


Maybe he should demand they surrender first?

No need to make demands, your beloved Republicans are imploding from the weight of their own hubris.

They seriously miscalculated, now the only thing remaining is to desperately attempt to save face somehow, so that they may declare "victory".

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

“There’s nothing on the table,” said Boehner on Tuesday. “There’s nothing off the table.”


Obama was sure that he would win the Shutdown fight.

He is just as sure that he will lose the debt ceiling fight.

His website does not work. It may never work, who knows...

But he might have to accept a delay just to save face for the political cronies that he gave three and a half years to as well as millions of dollars, Solyndra-style, to develop this non-functioning website. I tried to share that which I had learned about government software procurement and development and its 90% failure rate in college, but the Obamanation was having none of it because Canute can command the tides...

Obama smart.

A_J stupid. A_J racist who hates Obama...

Yeah, I get it, I think like I do because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed the ACA it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed the Stimulus it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed bailing out GM and the banks it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed Part D drug benefits it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed No Child Left behind it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed Al Gore because he lied for Clinton and stayed on in an impeached administration it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I was pissed that the UN left Saddam in place during Desert Storm it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I hated Reagan and everything he stood for it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I wanted Nixon gone over Watergate it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.

 

[RobDownSouth]

♫♫ Hold tight, coz AJ's party's over
Hold tight, we're in for nasty comments
There has got to be a way
Burning down the House
Here's his constant vitriol, time for jumpin' overboard
Palin's rapture is heeeeere ♫

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Can anyone other than doctrinaire Democrats and members of his immediate family keep a straight face when President Barack Obama insists that he is “prepared to negotiate on anything” while simultaneously saying that “until we make sure that Congress allows Treasury to pay for things that Congress itself already authorized, we are not going to engage in a series of negotiations”?

Or when Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announces that the government “cannot be put in a position of having to choose which commitments it should meet,” as if picking between, say, paying interest payments to avoid default and buying half a billion dollars worth of useless cargo planes is a contemporary version of Sophie’s Choice.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/10/any-debt-deal-should-be-as-dirty-as-poss

 

[RobDownSouth]

http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/10/any-debt-deal-should-be-as-dirty-as-poss

AJ Translator: Paying bills already incurred vs. deciding on future expenditures, what's the big difference anyway?

Derp!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In following the debates over raising the US debt ceiling, I’m struck by the frequent claim that defaulting on public debt is unthinkable because of the “signal” that would send. If you can’t rely on the T-bill, what can you rely on? Debt instruments backed by the “full faith and credit” of the United States are supposed to be risk-free — almost magically so — somehow transcending the vagaries of ordinary debt markets. The Treasury bill, in other words, has become a myth and symbol, just like the US Constitution.

I find this line of reasoning unpersuasive. A T-bill is a bond just like any other bond. Corporations, municipalities, and other issuers default on bonds all the time, and the results are hardly catastrophic.

Financial markets have been restructuring debt for many centuries, and they’ve gotten pretty good at it. From the discussion regarding T-bills, you’d think no one had ever heard of default-risk premiums before. (Interestingly, this seems to be a case of American exceptionalism: people aren’t particularly happy about Greek, Irish, and Portuguese defaults, but no one thinks the world will end because of them.)

So, isn’t it time to demythologize all of this? Treasuries are bonds just like any other bonds. There’s nothing magic, mythical, or sacred about them. A default on US government debt is no more or less radical than a default on any other kind of debt.

“What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom,” Adam Smith famously observed. Bankrupt firms, like bankrupt families, restructure their debt obligations all the time. The notion of T-bills as sacred relics to be once and forever “risk-free” seems more like religion than economics to me.

Peter G. Klein
http://mises.org/daily/6554/There-Is-Life-after-Default

 

[RobDownSouth]

Republican Congressman heard muttering leaving the Republican prayer breakfast this morning: "Looks like we're gonna have to do the clean CR".

Amen.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Zandi doesn't approve?

 

[Ishmael]

“There’s nothing on the table,” said Boehner on Tuesday. “There’s nothing off the table.”


Obama was sure that he would win the Shutdown fight.

He is just as sure that he will lose the debt ceiling fight.

His website does not work. It may never work, who knows...

But he might have to accept a delay just to save face for the political cronies that he gave three and a half years to as well as millions of dollars, Solyndra-style, to develop this non-functioning website. I tried to share that which I had learned about government software procurement and development and its 90% failure rate in college, but the Obamanation was having none of it because Canute can command the tides...

Obama smart.

A_J stupid. A_J racist who hates Obama...

Did you read through the code? We used to have a term for really fucked up coding techniques, 'spaghetti code'.

ObamaCode

The closest I can come in describing that shit is 'stream of consciousness' coding. $650 million for that crap?

Ishmael

 

[mercury14]

Chris DeRhodes Tea Party Cruz henchman Mike Lee's approval rating sinks to 40% (51% disapprove) in deep-red Utah. 57% of Utah residents want him to come off his far-right stance and compromise.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...state-over-government-shutdown?tmpl=component