Republicans vs. America 2013 edition

[dan_c00000]

The nine most painful impacts of a government shutdown

By Brad Plumer, Updated: October 1, 2013


The federal government is shutting down on Tuesday and will stay closed until Congress can reach an agreement on how to fund day-to-day operations. So who gets hurt most by the shutdown?

Everyone's heard that the panda cam at the National Zoo will power down, but that's hardly the most serious consequence of a shutdown. The biggest disruptions are less visible — the workers going without pay, the patients turned away from research clinics, and so on. Here's a rough list:

1) More than 2 million federal workers will see their paychecks delayed — and 800,000 of them might never get repaid.




This is, by a fair margin, the biggest immediate consequence of a shutdown. So long as Congress keeps the government closed, many federal workers simply won't get paid during the shutdown (save for those in agencies with independent funding, like Postal Service employees).

There are two classes of federal workers to consider. First, there are the 1.3 million "essential" civilian employees who keep working during the shutdown. These workers may see their paychecks delayed, but they'll eventually get paid once the government reopens.

It's a different story for the 800,000 or so workers deemed "non-essential." These employees have to come in for a few hours on Tuesday, get their files in order, and then go home without compensation, indefinitely. And it's unclear if they'll ever receive back pay. That's completely up to Congress. Non-essential workers did get paid retroactively after the 21-day 1995-'96 shutdown. But this time around, some conservative are reportedly skeptical at the idea of paying federal employees for "work they didn't do."

This could be a fair-sized financial hit for many workers, depending on how long the government stays shut down. Note that many of these federal employees have already gone through a three-year wage freeze and months of furloughs imposed by the sequestration budget cuts.

The economic impacts could also be sizable. Economist Mark Zandi argues that the furloughs could shave 0.3 percentage points of fourth-quarter GDP growth (although some of that activity would come back if the workers get back pay). Maryland, where many federal workers live, could lose up to $5 million per day in income and sales tax revenue.

Note that this doesn't include federal contractors, who will also start furloughing employees as contracts dry up. (During the 1995-'96 shutdown, one-fifth of contracts were put on hold.) It's still unclear how many companies will be affected, but the numbers are large. Fairfax County, Va., alone has 4,100 contractors that bring in about $26 billion per year.

2) Millions of veterans may not receive benefits if the shutdown lasts more than two weeks.

(The Washington Post)


Officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs have quietly told Congress that they likely won't have enough money to pay disability claims or make pension payments for veterans if a government shutdown lasts for more than two or three weeks. That could affect some 3.6 million veterans who receive these benefits.

In a briefing with Congress, VA officials warned that many veterans depend almost entirely on these checks for their livelihood, and many have not been given enough time or information to prepare.

3) The CDC will halt its flu program just as flu season gets underway.

(Rogelio V. Solis, File/Associated Press)


Every fall, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitors the spread of flu and figures out how best to direct vaccine programs around the country. During the shutdown, however, the agency will be "unable to support the annual seasonal influenza program," according to a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services.


We're sorry, but we will not be tweeting or responding to @ replies during the government shutdown. We'll be back as soon as possible!

— CDC Flu (@CDCFlu) October 1, 2013

And it's not just the flu. The CDC also has to stop providing "support to state and local partners for infectious disease surveillance." And the agency will have a "significantly reduced capacity to respond to outbreak investigations, processing of laboratory samples, and maintaining the agency’s 24/7 emergency operations center."

(The CDC will, however, continue its overseas malaria and AIDS programs, as those are funded independently.)

4) Some food-safety operations would cease.




During the shutdown, the Food and Drug Administration will have to cease most of its food-safety operations. That includes "routine establishment inspections, some compliance and enforcement activities, monitoring of imports, notification programs (e.g., food contact substances, infant formula), and the majority of the laboratory research necessary to inform public health decision-making."

This past December, the FDA shut down a nut processor in New Mexico after records showed that the facility was shipping products infected with salmonella. That sort of monitoring and enforcement could become much harder.

Now, that doesn't mean all food-safety oversight stops. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will still maintain thousands of inspectors to check out meat and poultry facilities, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service is still allowed to recall workers in the event of an emergency. So there's still a fair bit of oversight capacity in place. But many routine FDA activities on this front will come to a halt.

It's not just food safety either. A wide swath of regulatory agencies will close during the shutdown. The Environmental Protection Agency will stop monitoring air pollution and pesticide use. The Labor Department won't be around to enforce wage and hour laws or occupational safety. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees America's vast derivatives market, will close up.

It's very possible that nothing will go awry while these regulators are closed. But that's hard to say for sure.

5) Nutritional programs for women, infants and children could cease after a week.




During the shutdown, the Department of Agriculture will stop supporting the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, which helps pregnant women and new moms buy healthy food and provides nutritional information and health care referrals to those who need it. The program aids some 9 million Americans.

That won't hit immediately. The USDA estimates that most states have funds and authority to continue their programs for "a week or so," but they'll "likely be unable to sustain operations for a longer period. "Contingency funds will be available to help States -- but even this funding would not fully mitigate a shortfall for the entire month of October."

The agency notes, meanwhile, that food stamp aid for 47 million low-income Americans would be unaffected through the month of October, since that program still gets stimulus funds that won't run out until next year.

6) Financing for small businesses could be hampered.




The Small Business Administration has provided guarantees for some $106 billion in loans to more than 193,000 small businesses over the last four years. It also runs programs to help small firms win government contracts, help veteran-owned businesses, and boost international trade.

All that would cease in a shutdown. Although the SBA would continue to back existing loans in its portfolio, it wouldn't initiate any new loan guarantees. The one exception here is the Disaster Loan Program, which steps in during natural disasters and other emergencies — that would continue to operate.

For those reasons and others, a recent poll found that fully 41 percent of small-business employers with less than $5 million in annual revenue said that an extended shutdown (three months or more) would force them to pull back on their hiring plans. No one expects a shutdown that long, but even a shorter hiatus could disrupt some economic activity.

7) The tourist trade would take a hit.




The National Park Service will close more than 400 national parks, museums and sites across the country, including Yosemite National Park in California, Grand Canyon park, Alcatraz in San Francisco, and the Statue of Liberty in New York. Day visitors will have to leave immediately. Campers will have two days to pack up and get out.

That sounds like a minor inconvenience, but it can have a major economic impact. During the last shutdown in 1995-1996, some 7 million visitors were turned away from national parks. Tourist industries and airlines lost millions of dollars per day, according to the Congressional Research Service.

This time around, the National Parks Conservation Association estimates that local communities could lose some $30 million in business for every day of the shutdown.

8) Head Start programs for hundreds of kids will slowly start closing.




There are some 1,600 Head Start programs around the country providing education, health, nutrition and other services to roughly 1 million low-income children and their families. Those will slowly begin closing during a shutdown.

Initially, only about 20 programs would be affected — the programs whose federal grants expire on Oct. 1 and don't get renewed. Over time, more programs would likely be affected. The effects really vary from community to community. In York County, S.C., for instance, pre-kindergarten classes for some 864 kids will be canceled this Friday. (These programs would likely be reinstated once the shutdown ended.)

Note that Head Start has already faced cutbacks due to sequestration budget cuts, having eliminated services for some 57,000 children this year.

9) Disability benefits could be interrupted.




During the shutdown, the Social Security administration won't have enough staff to schedule new hearings for those applying for disability benefits. And the Veterans Appeal Board will be closed, which means veterans appealing a decision on disability benefits will have to wait until the shutdown ends.

-----

Note that these aren't the only consequences of the shutdown. There are plenty of others: Businesses won't be able to access E-Verify to check the immigration status of potential hires. The National Institutes of Health will stop accepting new patients for clinical trials. The Bureau of Land Management will stop issuing permits for oil and gas companies on public lands.

How painful the above impacts are depends on your perspective. Obviously the people affected will care a lot. But how big an outcry will there be from the broader public? Over at Business Insider, Joe Weisenthal suspects that "there's no obvious one thing [about a shutdown] that will be so annoying to the public that the two sides would quickly have to come to a deal." If that's true, a shutdown could last for quite some time.

It's also worth noting that we've already seen disruptive cuts this year after Congress allowed sequestration to hit — and lawmakers haven't exactly rushed to reverse those haphazard budget cuts. Indeed, much of Washington appears to have made peace with sequestration. That makes it hard to guess exactly how long a shutdown might last.

 

[jeninflorida]

do you need some Milk?

 

[Saint Peter]

Who hates America?

1) the tea party
2) al-qaeda

 

[KingOrfeo]

Who hates America?

1) the tea party
2) al-qaeda

Of course, that is not a multiple-choice test question; it is an accurate but incomplete list.

 

[jeninflorida]

Who hates America?

1) the tea party
2) al-qaeda

Obana hates America

 

[dan_c00000]

The Reign Of Morons Is Here


Only the truly naive can be truly surprised.

Only the truly child-like can have expected anything else.

In the year of our Lord 2010, the voters of the United States elected the worst Congress in the history of the Republic. There have been Congresses more dilatory. There have been Congresses more irresponsible, though not many of them. There have been lazier Congresses, more vicious Congresses, and Congresses less capable of seeing forests for trees. But there has never been in a single Congress -- or, more precisely, in a single House of the Congress -- a more lethal combination of political ambition, political stupidity, and political vainglory than exists in this one, which has arranged to shut down the federal government because it disapproves of a law passed by a previous Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court, a law that does nothing more than extend the possibility of health insurance to the millions of Americans who do not presently have it, a law based on a proposal from a conservative think-tank and taken out on the test track in Massachusetts by a Republican governor who also happens to have been the party's 2012 nominee for president of the United States. That is why the government of the United States is, in large measure, closed this morning...

By Charles P. Pierce




Only the truly naive can be truly surprised.

Only the truly child-like can have expected anything else.

In the year of our Lord 2010, the voters of the United States elected the worst Congress in the history of the Republic. There have been Congresses more dilatory. There have been Congresses more irresponsible, though not many of them. There have been lazier Congresses, more vicious Congresses, and Congresses less capable of seeing forests for trees. But there has never been in a single Congress -- or, more precisely, in a single House of the Congress -- a more lethal combination of political ambition, political stupidity, and political vainglory than exists in this one, which has arranged to shut down the federal government because it disapproves of a law passed by a previous Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court, a law that does nothing more than extend the possibility of health insurance to the millions of Americans who do not presently have it, a law based on a proposal from a conservative think-tank and taken out on the test track in Massachusetts by a Republican governor who also happens to have been the party's 2012 nominee for president of the United States. That is why the government of the United States is, in large measure, closed this morning.

We have elected the people sitting on hold, waiting for their moment on an evening drive-time radio talk show.

We have elected an ungovernable collection of snake-handlers, Bible-bangers, ignorami, bagmen and outright frauds, a collection so ungovernable that it insists the nation be ungovernable, too. We have elected people to govern us who do not believe in government.

We have elected a national legislature in which Louie Gohmert and Michele Bachmann have more power than does the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who has been made a piteous spectacle in the eyes of the country and doesn't seem to mind that at all. We have elected a national legislature in which the true power resides in a cabal of vandals, a nihilistic brigade that believes that its opposition to a bill directing millions of new customers to the nation's insurance companies is the equivalent of standing up the the Nazis in 1938, to the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, and to Mel Gibson's account of the Scottish Wars of Independence in the 13th Century. We have elected a national legislature that looks into the mirror and sees itself already cast in marble.

We did this. We looked at our great legacy of self-government and we handed ourselves over to the reign of morons.

This is what they came to Washington to do -- to break the government of the United States. It doesn't matter any more whether they're doing it out of pure crackpot ideology, or at the behest of the various sugar daddies that back their campaigns, or at the instigation of their party's mouthbreathing base. It may be any one of those reasons. It may be all of them. The government of the United States, in the first three words of its founding charter, belongs to all of us, and these people have broken it deliberately. The true hell of it, though, is that you could see this coming down through the years, all the way from Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Address in which government "was" the problem, through Bill Clinton's ameliorative nonsense about the era of big government being "over," through the attempts to make a charlatan like Newt Gingrich into a scholar and an ambitious hack like Paul Ryan into a budget genius, and through all the endless attempts to find "common ground" and a "Third Way." Ultimately, as we all wrapped ourselves in good intentions, a prion disease was eating away at the country's higher functions. One of the ways you can acquire a prion disease is to eat right out of its skull the brains of an infected monkey. We are now seeing the country reeling and jabbering from the effects of the prion disease, but it was during the time of Reagan that the country ate the monkey brains.

What is there to be done? The first and most important thing is to recognize how we came to this pass. Both sides did not do this. Both sides are not to blame. There is no compromise to be had here that will leave the current structure of the government intact. There can be no reward for this behavior. I am less sanguine than are many people that this whole thing will redound to the credit of the Democratic party. For that to happen, the country would have to make a nuanced judgment over who is to blame that, I believe, will be discouraged by the courtier press of the Beltway and that, in any case, the country has not shown itself capable of making. For that to happen, the Democratic party would have to be demonstrably ruthless enough to risk its own political standing to make the point, which the Democratic party never has shown itself capable of doing. With the vandals tucked away in safe, gerrymandered districts, and their control over state governments probably unshaken by events in Washington, there will be no great wave election that sweeps them out of power. I do not see profound political consequences for enough of them to change the character of a Congress gone delusional. The only real consequences will be felt by the millions of people affected by what this Congress has forced upon the nation, which was the whole point all along.

Among other things, the Library Of Congress is closed as a result of what the vandals have done. Padlock study and intellect. Wander aimlessly down the mall among the shuttered monuments to self-government. Find yourself a food truck that serves monkey brains. Eat your fking fill.

 

[Saint Peter]

Of course, that is not a multiple-choice test question; it is an accurate but incomplete list.

Yeah.

It was a tight race for the number one spot.

 

[Dazzle1]

The nine most painful impacts of a government shutdown

By Brad Plumer, Updated: October 1, 2013


The federal government is shutting down on Tuesday and will stay closed until Congress can reach an agreement on how to fund day-to-day operations. So who gets hurt most by the shutdown?

Everyone's heard that the panda cam at the National Zoo will power down, but that's hardly the most serious consequence of a shutdown. The biggest disruptions are less visible — the workers going without pay, the patients turned away from research clinics, and so on. Here's a rough list:

1) More than 2 million federal workers will see their paychecks delayed — and 800,000 of them might never get repaid.




This is, by a fair margin, the biggest immediate consequence of a shutdown. So long as Congress keeps the government closed, many federal workers simply won't get paid during the shutdown (save for those in agencies with independent funding, like Postal Service employees).

There are two classes of federal workers to consider. First, there are the 1.3 million "essential" civilian employees who keep working during the shutdown. These workers may see their paychecks delayed, but they'll eventually get paid once the government reopens.

It's a different story for the 800,000 or so workers deemed "non-essential." These employees have to come in for a few hours on Tuesday, get their files in order, and then go home without compensation, indefinitely. And it's unclear if they'll ever receive back pay. That's completely up to Congress. Non-essential workers did get paid retroactively after the 21-day 1995-'96 shutdown. But this time around, some conservative are reportedly skeptical at the idea of paying federal employees for "work they didn't do."

This could be a fair-sized financial hit for many workers, depending on how long the government stays shut down. Note that many of these federal employees have already gone through a three-year wage freeze and months of furloughs imposed by the sequestration budget cuts.

The economic impacts could also be sizable. Economist Mark Zandi argues that the furloughs could shave 0.3 percentage points of fourth-quarter GDP growth (although some of that activity would come back if the workers get back pay). Maryland, where many federal workers live, could lose up to $5 million per day in income and sales tax revenue.

Note that this doesn't include federal contractors, who will also start furloughing employees as contracts dry up. (During the 1995-'96 shutdown, one-fifth of contracts were put on hold.) It's still unclear how many companies will be affected, but the numbers are large. Fairfax County, Va., alone has 4,100 contractors that bring in about $26 billion per year.

2) Millions of veterans may not receive benefits if the shutdown lasts more than two weeks.

(The Washington Post)


Officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs have quietly told Congress that they likely won't have enough money to pay disability claims or make pension payments for veterans if a government shutdown lasts for more than two or three weeks. That could affect some 3.6 million veterans who receive these benefits.

In a briefing with Congress, VA officials warned that many veterans depend almost entirely on these checks for their livelihood, and many have not been given enough time or information to prepare.

3) The CDC will halt its flu program just as flu season gets underway.

(Rogelio V. Solis, File/Associated Press)


Every fall, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitors the spread of flu and figures out how best to direct vaccine programs around the country. During the shutdown, however, the agency will be "unable to support the annual seasonal influenza program," according to a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services.


We're sorry, but we will not be tweeting or responding to @ replies during the government shutdown. We'll be back as soon as possible!

— CDC Flu (@CDCFlu) October 1, 2013

And it's not just the flu. The CDC also has to stop providing "support to state and local partners for infectious disease surveillance." And the agency will have a "significantly reduced capacity to respond to outbreak investigations, processing of laboratory samples, and maintaining the agency’s 24/7 emergency operations center."

(The CDC will, however, continue its overseas malaria and AIDS programs, as those are funded independently.)

4) Some food-safety operations would cease.




During the shutdown, the Food and Drug Administration will have to cease most of its food-safety operations. That includes "routine establishment inspections, some compliance and enforcement activities, monitoring of imports, notification programs (e.g., food contact substances, infant formula), and the majority of the laboratory research necessary to inform public health decision-making."

This past December, the FDA shut down a nut processor in New Mexico after records showed that the facility was shipping products infected with salmonella. That sort of monitoring and enforcement could become much harder.

Now, that doesn't mean all food-safety oversight stops. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will still maintain thousands of inspectors to check out meat and poultry facilities, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service is still allowed to recall workers in the event of an emergency. So there's still a fair bit of oversight capacity in place. But many routine FDA activities on this front will come to a halt.

It's not just food safety either. A wide swath of regulatory agencies will close during the shutdown. The Environmental Protection Agency will stop monitoring air pollution and pesticide use. The Labor Department won't be around to enforce wage and hour laws or occupational safety. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees America's vast derivatives market, will close up.

It's very possible that nothing will go awry while these regulators are closed. But that's hard to say for sure.

5) Nutritional programs for women, infants and children could cease after a week.




During the shutdown, the Department of Agriculture will stop supporting the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, which helps pregnant women and new moms buy healthy food and provides nutritional information and health care referrals to those who need it. The program aids some 9 million Americans.

That won't hit immediately. The USDA estimates that most states have funds and authority to continue their programs for "a week or so," but they'll "likely be unable to sustain operations for a longer period. "Contingency funds will be available to help States -- but even this funding would not fully mitigate a shortfall for the entire month of October."

The agency notes, meanwhile, that food stamp aid for 47 million low-income Americans would be unaffected through the month of October, since that program still gets stimulus funds that won't run out until next year.

6) Financing for small businesses could be hampered.




The Small Business Administration has provided guarantees for some $106 billion in loans to more than 193,000 small businesses over the last four years. It also runs programs to help small firms win government contracts, help veteran-owned businesses, and boost international trade.

All that would cease in a shutdown. Although the SBA would continue to back existing loans in its portfolio, it wouldn't initiate any new loan guarantees. The one exception here is the Disaster Loan Program, which steps in during natural disasters and other emergencies — that would continue to operate.

For those reasons and others, a recent poll found that fully 41 percent of small-business employers with less than $5 million in annual revenue said that an extended shutdown (three months or more) would force them to pull back on their hiring plans. No one expects a shutdown that long, but even a shorter hiatus could disrupt some economic activity.

7) The tourist trade would take a hit.




The National Park Service will close more than 400 national parks, museums and sites across the country, including Yosemite National Park in California, Grand Canyon park, Alcatraz in San Francisco, and the Statue of Liberty in New York. Day visitors will have to leave immediately. Campers will have two days to pack up and get out.

That sounds like a minor inconvenience, but it can have a major economic impact. During the last shutdown in 1995-1996, some 7 million visitors were turned away from national parks. Tourist industries and airlines lost millions of dollars per day, according to the Congressional Research Service.

This time around, the National Parks Conservation Association estimates that local communities could lose some $30 million in business for every day of the shutdown.

8) Head Start programs for hundreds of kids will slowly start closing.




There are some 1,600 Head Start programs around the country providing education, health, nutrition and other services to roughly 1 million low-income children and their families. Those will slowly begin closing during a shutdown.

Initially, only about 20 programs would be affected — the programs whose federal grants expire on Oct. 1 and don't get renewed. Over time, more programs would likely be affected. The effects really vary from community to community. In York County, S.C., for instance, pre-kindergarten classes for some 864 kids will be canceled this Friday. (These programs would likely be reinstated once the shutdown ended.)

Note that Head Start has already faced cutbacks due to sequestration budget cuts, having eliminated services for some 57,000 children this year.

9) Disability benefits could be interrupted.




During the shutdown, the Social Security administration won't have enough staff to schedule new hearings for those applying for disability benefits. And the Veterans Appeal Board will be closed, which means veterans appealing a decision on disability benefits will have to wait until the shutdown ends.

-----

Note that these aren't the only consequences of the shutdown. There are plenty of others: Businesses won't be able to access E-Verify to check the immigration status of potential hires. The National Institutes of Health will stop accepting new patients for clinical trials. The Bureau of Land Management will stop issuing permits for oil and gas companies on public lands.

How painful the above impacts are depends on your perspective. Obviously the people affected will care a lot. But how big an outcry will there be from the broader public? Over at Business Insider, Joe Weisenthal suspects that "there's no obvious one thing [about a shutdown] that will be so annoying to the public that the two sides would quickly have to come to a deal." If that's true, a shutdown could last for quite some time.

It's also worth noting that we've already seen disruptive cuts this year after Congress allowed sequestration to hit — and lawmakers haven't exactly rushed to reverse those haphazard budget cuts. Indeed, much of Washington appears to have made peace with sequestration. That makes it hard to guess exactly how long a shutdown might last.

Only theidiots who voted for Obama blame the republicans

This is entirely Obama and reid's fault

 

[RobDownSouth]

Only theidiots who voted for Obama blame the republicans

This is entirely Obama and reid's fault

J-w so funny!

 

[lovecraft68]

It is nothing short of disturbing that Obama gets no blame for this whatsoever.

A true leader can cross party lines and get things done.

Now I don;t hold him fully responsible by any means. But he allegedly runs this country and this shows how little respect he has earned.

But what this does show in no uncertain terms is that No one in this mess from The president to the Gop to every member of the senate and house gives one fraction of a rats ass about the people any more. Not an ounce because of course this will hurt the middle class and poor and not touch anything in their white collar corrupt worlds.

They're all garbage, every single one of them.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It is nothing short of disturbing that Obama gets no blame for this whatsoever.

A true leader can cross party lines and get things done.

Now I don;t hold him fully responsible by any means. But he allegedly runs this country and this shows how little respect he has earned.

But what this does show in no uncertain terms is that No one in this mess from The president to the Gop to every member of the senate and house gives one fraction of a rats ass about the people any more. Not an ounce because of course this will hurt the middle class and poor and not touch anything in their white collar corrupt worlds.

They're all garbage, every single one of them.

He tried that in 2009, the Republicans basically shit on him.

As the noted philosopher George "Wartime Deserter" Bush once opined "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....we can't get fooled again!"

 

[Sean Renaud]

Obama actually gets credit for this. I know I'm not alone as someone who's sick and tired of Democrats in general and Obama in particular caving to Republican PRessure instead of ever standing their ground. It would be different if the Stimulus package hadn't been 30% tax relief, if the Sequester hadn't happened, if Obamacare was Single Payer or at least had a Public Option. Everytime Republicans step up he steps back.

I'm not sure this shows at all that nobody cares. Obama giving in will hurt the middle class in the long run and the Republicans while they are doing this the wrong way are standing for what they were elected to do.

 

[dan_c00000]

It is nothing short of disturbing that Obama gets no blame for this whatsoever.

More than six in 10 Americans, or 63%, disapprove of the way the GOP is handling the budget impasse that could force the first government shutdown in 17 years, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll.

In a CNN/ORC poll, 69% of Americans say Republicans are acting like "spoiled children" in the budget showdown.

 

[InJest]

It is nothing short of disturbing that Obama gets no blame for this whatsoever.

A true leader can cross party lines and get things done.

Now I don;t hold him fully responsible by any means. But he allegedly runs this country and this shows how little respect he has earned.

But what this does show in no uncertain terms is that No one in this mess from The president to the Gop to every member of the senate and house gives one fraction of a rats ass about the people any more. Not an ounce because of course this will hurt the middle class and poor and not touch anything in their white collar corrupt worlds.

They're all garbage, every single one of them.

Well said. Obama can negotiate with Putin, Assad, and Iran, but can't go into a room, take some leadership, and work something out with the Speaker of the House (an American).

Democrats call the GOP terrorists at the same time as actual terrorists mutilate children with pliars in Kenya. Petulant Obama fans the kind of discourse, instead of leading. He is a national disrace.

 

[InJest]

More than six in 10 Americans, or 63%, disapprove of the way the GOP is handling the budget impasse that could force the first government shutdown in 17 years, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll.

In a CNN/ORC poll, 69% of Americans say Republicans are acting like "spoiled children" in the budget showdown.

What do the polls say about obama's abject failure to lead?

What percent of Americans are in favor or 0care?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well said. Obama can negotiate with Putin, Assad, and Iran, but can't go into a room, take some leadership, and work something out with the Speaker of the House (an American).

Democrats call the GOP terrorists at the same time as actual terrorists mutilate children with pliars in Kenya. Petulant Obama fans the kind of discourse, instead of leading. He is a national disrace.

Of course he negotiate with those people. Those people want to negotiate and are willing to do so. The Republicans aren't. The fact that Assad and Putin are behaving better than Republicans is what's truly terrifying here. He's doing his best to lead, the fact that Republicans refuse to follow isn't really his fault.

What do the polls say about obama's abject failure to lead?

What percent of Americans are in favor or 0care?

over 40% generally about 45% at any given moment. They don't view him as an abject failure to lead. There is just a sizable portion of the country that will never give him a chance otherwise he'd probably average in the 60s.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Well said. Obama can negotiate with Putin, Assad, and Iran, but can't go into a room, take some leadership, and work something out with the Speaker of the House (an American).

Democrats call the GOP terrorists at the same time as actual terrorists mutilate children with pliars in Kenya. Petulant Obama fans the kind of discourse, instead of leading. He is a national disrace.

What the fuck is there to negotiate? The majority of the House AND the Senate wanted to vote on a "Clean CR" bill, but Boehner refused to antagonize the Tea Party because they didn't want to see it pass.

Congratulations to Harry Reid and President Obama for standing firm.

And fuck you and anyone who looks like you.

 

[richard_daily]

It is nothing short of disturbing that Obama gets no blame for this whatsoever.

what fantasy world are you living in?

 

[dan_c00000]

What do the polls say about obama's abject failure to lead?

What percent of Americans are in favor or 0care?

It looks like a good many.


Only One-Third Of Americans Support Repealing, Defunding Or Delaying Obamacare

Avik Roy Avik Roy, Contributor







41 comments, 37 called-out
Comment Now


Follow Comments












WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 13: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-T...
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 13: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) holds a news conference to announce their plan to defund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, at the U.S. Capitol March 13, 2013 in Washington, DC. Although Cruz and his fellow sponsors expect the legislation to fail, they believe it is an important survey of who supports health care reform. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)



Polls consistently show that Americans aren’t happy with Obamacare. They think the law will make health care more expensive, and decrease its quality. But a new survey of 1,976 registered voters finds that only 33 percent believe that the health law should be repealed, delayed, or defunded. 29 percent believe that “Congress should make changes to improve the law,” 26 percent believe that “Congress should let the law take effect” and see what happens, and 12 percent believe that the law should be expanded. The bottom line? Voters are skeptical that Obamacare will live up to Democrats’ hype. But they also believe that it should be given a chance to succeed.

The new poll was conducted by the Morning Consult, a healthcare media company founded by Michael Ramlet. Ramlet, in evaluating the results of his survey, finds that voters are “unmoved by three months of the defund argument,” and that a majority would “blame congressional Republicans a lot for a government shutdown.”



Americans oppose risking a government shutdown

Here are the numbers. 26 percent of the respondents identified as Republicans, compared to 42 percent Democrats and 31 percent independents. (This compares to a spread of 22 R / 31 D / 45 I in the most recent Gallup tracking poll.)

Ramlet asked: “If your Member of Congress supports efforts to defund the 2010 healthcare law, and the efforts lead to a government shutdown, would that make you more likely, or less likely, to vote for this legislator in the next election?” 42 percent of voters said “less likely,” 30 percent said “more likely,” and 28 percent said “no difference.” Among independents, the breakdown was 44-28-28, respectively; among whites, it was 41-32-27; among Hispanics, 46-34-21.

Voters would blame “Republicans in Congress if the current budget dispute leads to a government shutdown starting October 1.” 51 percent would blame them “a lot,” 21 percent “some,” and 17 percent “a little.” Only 12 percent would assign no blame to Republicans. But voters would also blame President Obama for a shutdown, albeit by slimmer margins: 41 percent “a lot,” 15 percent “some,” and 18 percent “a little.” For Congressional Democrats, the numbers were 36 percent “a lot,” 24 percent “some,” and 23 percent “a little.”



Voters believe, by a margin of 66-33, that the 2012 election “represented a referendum on moving forward with implementation of the 2010 health care law.” 24 percent strongly agreed with that sentence; 42 percent somewhat did; 17 percent somewhat disagreed; and 16 percent strongly disagreed.

Voters are skeptical of the law’s promises

Most polls show that voters disapprove of the 2010 health care law by significant margins. The Morning Consult’s poll did not. 46 percent of voters strongly or somewhat disapproved of “the health care legislation passed by Barack Obama and Congress in 2010,” whereas 48 percent somewhat or strongly approved. (The disapproval was more heartfelt; 32 percent strongly disapproved, whereas only 21 percent strongly approved.)

On the other hand, voters are deeply skeptical of the law’s promises to make health care more affordable. 57 percent believe that it will make health care “much more” or “somewhat more” expensive, whereas only 15 percent believe it will make health care “much less” or “somewhat less” expensive. 37 percent believe that the law will negatively affect the “availability of medical benefits,” whereas 23 percent believe it will improve access. 37 percent believe that the law will negatively affect “the quality of the medical care you receive,” whereas 20 percent believe it will improve it.

Two-thirds of voters want to give the law a chance to succeed

While voters are skeptical that the law will benefit them, they don’t agree with conservatives who say that it represents an existential threat to America. Only 26 percent of voters believe that “Congress should repeal the law,” and only 7 percent believe that “Congress should delay and defund the law.”

On the other hand, 29 percent believe that “Congress should make changes to improve the law.” 26 percent believe that “Congress should let the law take effect.” And 12 percent believe that “Congress should expand the law.”



33 percent of voters overall support repealing, defunding or delaying Obamacare. 65 percent of Republicans feel that way, compared to 37 percent of independents and 10 percent of Democrats. 18 percent of Hispanics support repeal, defund, or delay. Americans over the age of 65 are most strongly opposed to the law, with younger voters most supportive.



Have anti-Obamacare activists misread the public?

As you go through the Morning Consult report, this general attitude becomes clear. The public is deeply skeptical that Obamacare will make their lives better. Indeed, they largely believe that it will make health care more costly and less efficient. But they don’t view the law in the apocalyptic terms that many conservatives do. “The American people overwhelmingly reject Obamacare,” says Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. That may be, but neither do they support shutting down the government in order to repeal it.

Ted Cruz believes that Obamacare must be stopped now, because if it isn’t, the law just might become popular. But the irony is that Cruz may have it exactly wrong. If the public is right, that Obamacare will make health care worse rather than better, the law may become less popular over time. Either way, what the public wants above all else is for Republicans to propose legislation that will make the health care system better.



During Sen. Cruz’s 21-hour marathon speech on the Senate floor, he rightly cited many of the flaws and problems with our new health care law. But notably missing from his remarks was any attempt to address the real problems with our health care system, problems that conservative activists have neglected for 70-odd years. If Sen. Cruz cares about the sentiments of the American people as much as he says he does, he would be well served to consider that fact.