NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Hink]

The point is that damage starts tomorrow if it is funded. If it is so wonderful and people want it so badly, why can't get be approved at a later time?

Because the other view is that the help starts tomorrow instead of waiting a year. There are two sides to this coin.

You brought up talking heads and Cruz... not me.

You still missed the point. I wasn't talking about Cruz, I was talking about the fact that they are arguing Obamacare in a bill that funds the government. Obamacare shouldn't be argued with the budget bill. It is separate. Do you see what I am saying now?

It is about as weak as saying that Obama was elected so we must all fall in line with his hope and changes BS and give him what ever he wants.

This isn't about agreeing with Obama's agenda. It is about accepting that we elect people who vote for us. Remember the Representative Democracy thing. Polling doesn't matter in our system. Why don't we have transparency in government? 50% of the people want to see big money out of government. Yet it remains. If you want to keep this point going, I will find 10 more things that have a 50% approval or disapproval and state them to again prove the point. Polling doesn't matter.

So it is a big deal when Fox lies, but not the President? The point that he lied is relevant because do you think that he would have been able to get it passed if they knew it was a tax? Doubt it.

He thought it wasn't a tax. That much is clear. He was wrong. I guess he might have lied about it. It is a law. Does it matter?

And the fact is that bills for funding originate in the house according to the constitution, the house bill funds everything BUT Obamacare (and now just delays it).

Yep. So when the government isn't funded who's fault is it? Exactly. We have come around to the cold hard truth. The fault lies with the republicans alone.

Here we go with this YOU stuff again. I am not a member of Congress. I agree that for a few weeks, it is a bad thing. As someone who lost a job because of the economy, I know what it is like. Although I knew that I was not going back to that company any time soon. As soon as the Senate votes to approve the funding for each of those employees, they get to go back to job.

You are speaking as though you agree with the republican talking points, so I am referring to you as one of them. I apologize for doing so. I will continue to say republicans instead. Point noted.

The house only wants to not fund Obamacare. The Senate will vote no on everything else just to get their way. I wonder what would happen if the House sent individual bills to the senate to fund each section independently. Would the Senate vote no on those too?

I would imagine is the house sent a clean CR the Senate would approve it. That would fund, you know, the government. Or they could have drafted over the last year funding bills and sent them to the Senate. As it is now, they are playing this game and are going to get burned. They are playing with people's jobs, our economy, and healthcare, to state a point they believe is right. Would you think this was okay if the democrats did this to force tax reform on the wealthy?

Exactly.

P.S. You are welcome for me saving you from the Drunklage.

 

[ColoGI]

Take a look at the time period from 2000 on.

(from NOAA)


That disinformation site that convinced you that weBcoolin didn't bother to tell you the rest of the story, such as 2010 hottest year in instrumental record, Naughties hottest decade by far in instrumental record, if you leave out 1998 you can't parrot the David Rose dishonest assertion "no warmin in 17 years' . Ah, well. The 6-9% of the population who are hard-core denialists don't have voting power - it is Koch, Exxon, Duke, rest of carbon polluters who drive this bus, not the purposely underinformed.

 

[Hink]

Two things.

1. It is sad to me that a democrat will win the presidency in 2016. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
My hope is that the republican party gets itself back to reality before 2016. Ted Cruz is instant death to the republicans. 70-30 crushing.

2. 60% of the country wants the republicans to not close down the government.

While 57 percent said they oppose the healthcare law, 60 percent said "it is more important for Congress to avoid a shutdown than to make major changes to the new health care law," CNN said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-usa-fiscal-poll-idUSBRE98T0J720130930

The polls have spoken, I guess [STRIKEOUT]they[/STRIKEOUT] republicans HAVE to pass it now....

 

[michaelskis]

Because the other view is that the help starts tomorrow instead of waiting a year. There are two sides to this coin.

I guess this is a point that we will have to agree to disagree. You say it is good, I say it is bad.

You still missed the point. I wasn't talking about Cruz, I was talking about the fact that they are arguing Obamacare in a bill that funds the government. Obamacare shouldn't be argued with the budget bill. It is separate. Do you see what I am saying now?

The bill it's self will still remain. Because this is a funding bill... although a pathetic excuse for one... and Obamacare needs to be funded, that is why it is being discussed.

This isn't about agreeing with Obama's agenda. It is about accepting that we elect people who vote for us. Remember the Representative Democracy thing. Polling doesn't matter in our system. Why don't we have transparency in government? 50% of the people want to see big money out of government. Yet it remains. If you want to keep this point going, I will find 10 more things that have a 50% approval or disapproval and state them to again prove the point. Polling doesn't matter.

In some ways I agree with you... even though it is not a Representative Democracy... it is a Constitutional Republic. There have been people who have posted polls on here about other things. I don't agree with basic mob mentality. However, I think that it is frightening when unions and tea party leaders agree on a topic.

He thought it wasn't a tax. That much is clear. He was wrong. I guess he might have lied about it. It is a law. Does it matter?

There is no way for you to prove that he did not know it was a tax and there is no way for me to prove that it was. Regardless of the situation, the "it is not a tax" was a big selling point. It is bait and switch.

Yep. So when the government isn't funded who's fault is it? Exactly. We have come around to the cold hard truth. The fault lies with the republicans alone.

Everyone in Washington. First of all, this is a CR (Continuing Resolution) which could be argued that no new funding should be accepted since it is a continuation of an old budget and not a new budget. Second, it is the Senate Democrats fault because they have voted no on two bills now. If you look at the House bills, they have voted to fund everything except Obamacare as part of the CR. The senate has voted to not support the CR twice and sent them back to the House for revision. Harry Reid even prevented anyone except him from making amendments to the healthcare bill in the Senate.

You are speaking as though you agree with the republican talking points, so I am referring to you as one of them. I apologize for doing so. I will continue to say republicans instead. Point noted.

THank you. I rather not be associated with the republicans either.

I would imagine is the house sent a clean CR the Senate would approve it. That would fund, you know, the government. Or they could have drafted over the last year funding bills and sent them to the Senate. As it is now, they are playing this game and are going to get burned. They are playing with people's jobs, our economy, and healthcare, to state a point they believe is right. Would you think this was okay if the democrats did this to force tax reform on the wealthy?

I would love to see the CR broken into individual segments. If they don't agree with the healthcare act, they can debate the funding on that until both are blue in the face. Fund everything else piece by piece.

P.S. You are welcome for me saving you from the Drunklage.

I limit my self to one beer per day,if that, until baby 3 is born (within the next 10 days likely). I don't want to run the risk of drinking a few then having to drive the wife to the hospital then trying to stay up all night with her while she is in labor.

 

[imaplanner]

I would imagine is the house sent a clean CR the Senate would approve it. That would fund, you know, the government. Or they could have drafted over the last year funding bills and sent them to the Senate. As it is now, they are playing this game and are going to get burned. They are playing with people's jobs, our economy, and healthcare, to state a point they believe is right. Would you think this was okay if the democrats did this to force tax reform on the wealthy?

Exactly.

P.S. You are welcome for me saving you from the Drunklage.

That's the thing here. The government operating, paying the military, etc. What if the senate said they would notfundthe government unless guns were banned. skis would have a different view on the hostage-taking excercise. The fact that he knows this and still persists in the talking points that he has heard from Dave Ramsey and Mark Levin demonstrates that he is less concerned with rationality then with the defense of a specific ideology. And this fanaticism is what is tearing apart the country. It bodes ill for the future, where a clear minority of fanatical extremists will continue to lose elections but engage in legislative terrorism.

We've debunked much of the talking points he has spread the last week or so. Obamacare exempts congress. False. Obamacare pays doctors less. False. Obamacare makes the doctor ask you about unrelated things. False. Noaa says global temps are declining. False. Congress had less than two days to read and vote on Obamacare. False. Demonstration of these things as false have, if anything, resulted in a more persistent narrative from this mskis individual about how evil and bad Obama and Obamacare are. The conclusion one must draw is that there is a "belief" in a certain ideology that is such a important part of the identification of self that anything contrary to the ideology is actively prevented and blocked from the usual thought process.

It's fascinating actually.

 

[michaelskis]

That's the thing here. The government operating, paying the military, etc. What if the senate said they would notfundthe government unless guns were banned. skis would have a different view on the hostage-taking excercise. The fact that he knows this and still persists in the talking points that he has heard from Dave Ramsey and Mark Levin demonstrates that he is less concerned with rationality then with the defense of a specific ideology. And this fanaticism is what is tearing apart the country. It bodes ill for the future, where a clear minority of fanatical extremists will continue to lose elections but engage in legislative terrorism.

We've debunked much of the talking points he has spread the last week or so. Obamacare exempts congress. False. Obamacare pays doctors less. False. Obamacare makes the doctor ask you about unrelated things. False. Noaa says global temps are declining. False. Congress had less than two days to read and vote on Obamacare. False. Demonstration of these things as false have, if anything, resulted in a more persistent narrative from this mskis individual about how evil and bad Obama and Obamacare are. The conclusion one must draw is that there is a "belief" in a certain ideology that is such a important part of the identification of self that anything contrary to the ideology is actively prevented and blocked from the usual thought process.

It's fascinating actually.

Guns are protected by the Constitution. Healthcare is not. You have not debunked anything other than your need for moderators to step in because you get too emotional when discussing politics.

Mark Levin is a tool and Dave Ramsey know more about money than you do. I will take his guidance regarding money over yours any day of the week.

As for the exception, thank you for bringing that up. Can you honestly tell me without any doubt that when it comes to Obamacare, Congress (house and senate) will play by the same rules as you and me? Will they get subsidies even though they might make more than the family cut off limit?

(here is a link before you answer)

 

[jwhitty]

even though it is not a Representative Democracy... it is a Constitutional Republic.

I've noticed this linguistic challenge become more prominent as the U.S. has become more parliamentary volatile. I remember it use to be people screaming "we aren't a democracy!" Even though democracy is just a rule by the people. People always seem to conflate voting, with the end all be all of governance. Now people are complaining about the point of order, like we operate on the same level as a high school model UN.

http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=constitutional+republic#q=constitutional%20republic&geo=US&cmpt=q
Notice the words become more popular in September 2012, and blowing up recently.

Now democratic governance isn't even just voting, it is the method of the representatives' vote? Who cares? It is all abstract once you get that deep into the minutia, and the argument loses all meaning. It becomes akin to children playing a made up game and complaining about who broke the game's rules. Here is something funny, the governance in the United States is a form of democracy, utilizing a representative democracy, operating under a constitution creating a bicameral republic. Big whoop, if they can't govern, they can't govern. Complaining about how certain players are playing the game isn't a really good form of action, and won't really change anything.

 

[natski]

Sorry to interrupt your high level political discussion, but can someone explain to me what is all this shut down government business? Being from a westminster system i dont quite understand it

 

[imaplanner]

I've noticed this linguistic challenge become more prominent as the U.S. has become more parliamentary volatile. I remember it use to be people screaming "we aren't a democracy!" Even though democracy is just a rule by the people. People always seem to conflate voting, with the end all be all of governance. Now people are complaining about the point of order, like we operate on the same level as a high school model UN.
.

Now democratic governance isn't even just voting, it is the method of the representatives' vote? Who cares? It is all abstract once you get that deep into the minutia, and the argument loses all meaning. It becomes akin to children playing a made up game and complaining about who broke the game's rules. Here is something funny, the governance in the United States is a form of democracy, utilizing a representative democracy, operating under a constitution creating a bicameral republic. Big whoop, if they can't govern, they can't govern. Complaining about how certain players are playing the game isn't a really good form of action, and won't really change anything.

The irony is that Skis argues in one post that we aren't a democracy but then in another post that the republicans are right because its what the people want (which is actually also not true since the polls show people dont want Obamacare defunded as a condition of shutdown). But notice the rhetoric. If something he supports is unpopular, well America is not a true democracy. If something he supports is popular well then let's give the people what they want! Democracy!


Ironic.

On the topic of Dave Ramsey. He is a tool who actually preaches anti-biblical principles masquerading as christianity. As far as money, he makes money preying on those who covet. This guy actually preaches that God commands you to seek great wealth and that poverty is sin. Things that are at great contradiction with the bible. He actually gives people terrible advice as well. The only time he ran a business that was not scamming people he went bankrupt. He is an entertainer. People who think of him as anything else are delusional. The rise of entertainers as political and biblical prophets is pretty scary.

 

[michaelskis]

Sorry to interrupt your high level political discussion, but can someone explain to me what is all this shut down government business? Being from a westminster system i dont quite understand it

I think that this link might answer your questions. I should be non-bias but because I am posting it, some will find fault with it.

The irony is that Skis argues in one post that we aren't a democracy but then in another post that the republicans are right because its what the people want (which is actually also not true since the polls show people dont want Obamacare defunded as a condition of shutdown). But notice the rhetoric. If something he supports is unpopular, well America is not a true democracy. If something he supports is popular well then let's give the people what they want! Democracy!

It is in response to people arguing that people should just follow the president at his pleasure and not challenge bad laws.

Ironic.

On the topic of Dave Ramsey. He is a tool who actually preaches anti-biblical principles masquerading as christianity. As far as money, he makes money preying on those who covet. This guy actually preaches that God commands you to seek great wealth and that poverty is sin. Things that are at great contradiction with the bible. He actually gives people terrible advice as well. The only time he ran a business that was not scamming people he went bankrupt. He is an entertainer. People who think of him as anything else are delusional. The rise of entertainers as political and biblical prophets is pretty scary.

I agree with your concept of the rise of entertainers (like hollywood) as political and biblical prophets as scary. As for Ramsey, does he use the bible to teach financial way of life... yep. My guess is you listen to him frequently because you keep bringing him up. I read his books and completed his FPU program because he has the background and credentials saying he knows more about money then you do. (and me for that matter). But he is not the only one that I follow and I don't agree with 100% of what he says. I also like Og Mandino, and the class economic books. And it is not just about politics. For example, I don't like Ben Bernanke... but at least his has more credibility and credentials than you or I.

Next you will be telling me that personal debt is good.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

WOW,

10:59 pm eastern, and the GOP wants to save their buts by going to conference committee between the House and Senate. The interesting point, is that the GOP has no idea if the House leadership has even talked to Reid about getting a conference together.

 

[michaelskis]

Oh good the internet still works.


On a side and truly ironic note, we are at the hospital because the wife thinks that baby #3 might be on his way. I am so happy that they are still open and the world did not come to an end.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Oh good the internet still works.


On a side and truly ironic note, we are at the hospital because the wife thinks that baby #3 might be on his way. I am so happy that they are still open and the world did not come to an end.

Congrads on the new (petential) arrival. I wish you a healthy child! :a:


On a side note, I don't know why anyone would think the world would end?

I have been trying to get to the WI site for the health care exchanges since midnight. The Healthcare.gov site is getting crushed while it is still coming up online. Here is the coversation I have had in trying to log on:


[12:59:32 am]: Thanks for contacting Health Insurance Marketplace Live Chat. Please wait while we connect you to someone who can help.
[12:59:55 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:00:49 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:01:46 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:02:43 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:03:37 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:04:30 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:05:18 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:06:17 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:07:05 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:07:46 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:08:42 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:09:14 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:09:51 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:10:58 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:11:21 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:12:03 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:16:09 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:16:13 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:16:15 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:16:15 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:16:16 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:16:17 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:16:17 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:16:40 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:17:11 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:17:42 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:18:14 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:18:44 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:19:16 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:19:48 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:20:19 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:20:49 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:21:22 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:21:52 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:22:23 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:22:53 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:23:25 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:23:56 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:24:27 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:24:57 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:25:29 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:26:00 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:26:30 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:27:01 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:27:33 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:28:03 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:28:35 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:29:05 am]: Please be patient while we're helping other people.
[01:29:16 am]: Welcome! You're now connected to Health Insurance Marketplace Live Chat.

Thanks for contacting us. My name is MarcoS. To protect your privacy, please don't provide any personal information, like Social Security Number, or any other sensitive medical or personal information.

[01:29:47 am]: MarcoS
Hello, my name is Marco, Can I start out by asking what state you are in?

[01:29:55 am]: CALLER
Why can't I create a user name at the "Create a Marketplace Account" web page?

[01:30:35 am]: CALLER
WI

[01:31:09 am]: CALLER
Green Bay, WI

[01:32:03 am]: MarcoS
I can answer your questions about the Marketplace and how you can enroll. You can also use HealthCare.gov to find this information and what programs you may qualify for, as well as find and apply for coverage, compare plans, and enroll in a health insurance plan. You can apply now through the end of open enrollment. Open enrollment for health coverage in 2014 closes on March 31, 2014.

[01:33:35 am]: CALLER
yeah, I know all that. I am trying to create a "Maketplace Account" on the Healthcare.gov site and I have followed the username and password rules. What is wrong?

[01:33:58 am]: CALLER
I have tried various names and character usage and it is not working.

[01:35:04 am]: CALLER
For instance "Fillibuster#01" follows the username rules, but does not work.

[01:36:22 am]: MarcoS
The system is experiancing issues due to the high number of visitors of the site. You can try at 8 a.m. Eastern Time when the system is running much smoother.

[01:37:58 am]: CALLER
Come on, you guys didn't see this coming? Why would 8:00 am be any better? Is the shut down hobeling you guys? Please answer.

[0133 am]: MarcoS
The system will be fully avaiable at that time. There is still some things being updated. This may cause problems on the site.

[01:41:07 am]: CALLER
Ok, have a good night... out.

[01:42:20 am]: MarcoS
Have a nice evening.

[01:42:23 am]: MarcoS
Thank you for contacting Health Insurance Marketplace Live Chat. We are here to help you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

[michaelskis]

Congrads on the new (petential) arrival. I wish you a healthy child! :a:


On a side note, I don't know why anyone would think the world would end?

I have been trying to get to the WI site for the health care exchanges since midnight. The Healthcare.gov site is getting crushed while it is still coming up online. Here is the coversation I have had in trying to log on:

Wow, and they said that the apple rollout of iOS7 was bad.

No baby yet. They are not sure if they will send us home or keep us here.

 

[btrage]

Well, everything should be solved now right?

 

[michaelskis]

Well, everything should be solved now right?

It's the federal government... The more they work at something, the less solved it becomes.

 

[Gedunker]

When we bought our home some 18 years ago, a family of seven lived across the street from us in a historic home - complete with Indiana historic marker - built in 1854. "Modernized" in the 1890s to include Italianate elements, the bones of the late-Federal style home are still evident. A big house at roughly 5000 square feet, it was in okay shape but could have used a little loving care.

The mom and dad were probably early 40s - and the kids ranged from a toddler to a college freshman. He was a salesman for a heavy equipment company, and she was a teacher's aid. Nice folks but they mostly kept to themselves over the years. We learned that the mom had been diagnosed with stomach cancer but thankfully the doctors had found it fairly early and they were able to treat her. She went into remission.

He lost his sales job because of the cancer, however. The house started looking worse and worse - a bracket had rotted away from water damage and pigeons were nesting in the opening in the soffitt. No one seemed to care about the broken window in the attic. He found work again - this was before the Great Recession - but he had no insurance. And then she was diagnosed with cancer again, this time late stage IV, metastasized into her lymph nodes, lungs, the whole mess. They brought her to a hospital in Cincinnati to be nearer her family, but she passed away shortly thereafter.

The bank foreclosed on the house while she was in her last days and the house really got to be in bad shape. He moved out at night taking the few things the family had left and left the place in rough shape. The house sat vacant for several years until a young couple bought it and rehabbed it, doing a beautiful job.

This is a true story and represents, to me, what those opposed to the Affordable Care Act wish to preserve - to the extent that they would shut down the government. By the way, the historic marker out front of the house commemorates the fact that it was built for and occupied by a man that later served in the US Congress as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

 

[ColoGI]

...

This is a true story and represents, to me, what those opposed to the Affordable Care Act wish to preserve - to the extent that they would shut down the government. By the way, the historic marker out front of the house commemorates the fact that it was built for and occupied by a man that later served in the US Congress as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

If we allow those people to have tangible health services, that is less money and treasure for the plutocrats to loot.

 

[Planit]

Jimmy Kimmel did a spot asking people on the street if they preferred ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act. Guess what the majority wanted the ACA to pass, but did not want ObamaCare.

These people looked like standard middle class cictzens, not homeless or poorfolk or Richie rich.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I think that the side effects of the ACA will quickly be felt if the "culture of forced part time work" takes place.

Anybody who has a shred of economic sense will quickly realize that just because a business may reduce the time a worker works per week to 29 hours, it does not eliminate the need for the business to fill the position to accomplish the goal of providing their widgets. If 40 hours is standard, and 29 hours is the goal of the GOP, then every three personnel reductions will create a new position. In other words, the GOP dream of total resistance to the ACA will cause the overheating of the economy. Obviously, there will be many businesses that understand the ACA is a good thing and will not work to get around its provision. However, for those that do, they will not cease or reduce operations.

In the model of total business resistance, the nation would face a situation of total employment. In fact, there would be no way in which companies could possibly manage to fill all of its positions needed to operate. The official unemployment rate is 7.3%. Total resistance would require at least 25% (maybe up to 33%) more employment positions in every industry. Officially, the unemployment rate would be -17.7%. The economy would be so hot that company's would have to provide incredible perks to attract employees. This actually happened during WW II. During WW II, wages were capped so health care and pensions were offered to compensate for the lack of wage increases. Only in this instance, employees would be able to successfully bargain for wages this time.

The total resistance model would actually be the best thing to happen to American workers in decades. The Unemployment rate for whites is way lower than the rate for minorities. Under the total resistance model, anybody who wanted to work, would be working 29 hours a week as a minimum. Due to the overheated economy and the limited availability of a work force, 29 hours would be the floor. In reality, any worker would likely have as much work as they wanted. Here are some of the benefits of the total resistance model:

+ Nobody will be working for minimum wage. Not even waiters.
+ If hours, lost are equivalent to the negative rate of employment (I know its more complicated than that), the promises and goals of the "32 hour work week" has been achieved. People will be working 29 hours and earning more than the equivalent of 40 or more hours per week.
+ Workers would have a choice. Enjoy your new expanded free time, or invest time and actually gain resources to achieve future goals by working more. Each choice provides workers with more cash than before.
+ The GOP will have successfully resurrected the monster of inflation and sky high interest rates due to excess employment. Threatens an economic crash or with-holding of pent up provision of goods and services.
+ There will be a huge building and investment in infrastructure boom. The housing market completly recovers and new building requires new roads.
+ A boom in education would happen. Education will become more affordable. Students will fill current levels of hours and be better compensated.
+ The requirement that workers be flexible will require that business also be flexible with hours. There will be transportation effects for public and private patterns.
+ I am sure others could expand this list.

Now every business is not going to operate at the level of full resistance. Some will, and that will actually bring unemployment down. The more that resist, the lower the unemployment drops, the more successful the ACA will be. I think this major ripple effect will develop and has been under contemplated. Even if 10% of business practice full resistance, it could move the economy to near overheated status with a range of 4.5% to 4%.

If ALL company's target 5% or more of their own workforce to limit access to jobs of 30 hours or more, the same effect will happen. It is kind of the "problem of the commons" issue. Each individual company sees a benefit of having more workers (livestock) on the public grounds (total # of jobs of the US economy). It will benefit the workers the more companies try to limit access to protected commons (positions with expanded fixed hours, increased pay, and benefits) and harm the company by raising costs associated with maintaining a larger workforce (more cattle). Workers will have to modify their work routine and behaviors, but they will continue to adjust to the new work requirements. So what, workers have been doing this since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

A worker with 2 jobs could potentially have 58 hours of work with easily greater than minimum wage due to the overheating of the job market. Remember, the unemployment rate only has to drop by 2.5% to start making this happen. This could EASILY happen. SO:

58 hours x $7.50 = $435 wk or $22,620 or about 200% the poverty level
58 hours x $10.50 = $609 wk or $31,688 or about 275% the poverty level

A family with two working adults would be:

116 hours x $7.50 = $870 wk or $45,240 or about 400% the poverty level
116 hours x $10.50 = $1,218 wk or $63,36 or over 600% the poverty level

It is easy to see that this could actually work better for our economy than the current model. obviously, these number of hours would vary, but one can see that people currently unable to afford insurance would now have the ability to get it and the side effects to the economy could be the kick start to the economy we need.

Just throwing out ideas. Feel free to add to it. The picking apart will come on its own!

 

[Hink]

Jimmy Kimmel did a spot asking people on the street if they preferred ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act. Guess what the majority wanted the ACA to pass, but did not want ObamaCare.

These people looked like standard middle class cictzens, not homeless or poorfolk or Richie rich.

It is all about messaging. How you ask the question changes the answers. People are much stupider than we give them credit for.

Which is why polling is pointless.

 

[ColoGI]

It is all about messaging. How you ask the question changes the answers. People are much stupider than we give them credit for.

Which is why polling is pointless.

And worshiping Free Markets^TM or believing in the wisdom of crowds, etc.

 

[Hink]

http://www.businessweek.com/article...ote-to-reopen-the-government?campaign_id=yhoo

A well written piece. I happen to agree with a good portion of it. As someone who would like to be a republican (but can't because of obvious ideological issues), I strongly agree with this:

The simplest way for the Republican Party to broaden its appeal might be the same as the way out of the shutdown. Let the Tea Party Caucus be the Tea Party Caucus. That’s what its members were democratically elected to do. But don’t allow them to run the place simply because they wave the Hastert Rule. The party itself is already less homogenous than it was not long ago. Such party discipline clearly isn’t possible; it might not even be necessary. If Republicans let their party structure in Congress become weaker, they may find it not only easier to get things done, but easier to get a lot more Republicans elected.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

http://www.businessweek.com/article...ote-to-reopen-the-government?campaign_id=yhoo

A well written piece. I happen to agree with a good portion of it. As someone who would like to be a republican (but can't because of obvious ideological issues), I strongly agree with this:

They don't want you, as you are ADMITTING to being a RINO. So it seems you still have a sole, that is a good thing. There is nothing preventing you from working toward those things that you feel are needed within the DEM party. It wouldn't matter if there were only 1 party. Being fiscally conservative and socially liberal is a needed thing. Hell, you don't even need to be socially liberal, you just need to not be a social troglodyte.

I disagree with the comment about the GOP being "Less homogeneous than it was before". It is actually MORE homogeneous. Their silly conference committee consisted solely of white men. Diversity in action.

The article cited, states an impossibility. In a GOP where the word "compromise" can not actually be spoken, where compromise is the same as treason, where the rabid teabagger at the back of the Town Hall on Medicare and Social Security accuses and excoriates every GOP congress person to screw everyone unlike them, why would they then act rationally.

DEM's have accepted the numbers from the Ryan budget as a starting point. But yes isn't good enough for them. Not hashing out the ACA since that is well scorched ground, but why would they give up a hard won program it took nearly 80 years to legislate? Its even 90% a republican plan! There is nothing for the DEM's to cave on. The GOP asking for everything is not negotiating or compromise.

The GOP learned nothing from the last election cycles where it has been punished in 5 of the last 6. They are marching rapidly to an 18th century racist apartheid party based in the deep south... and weirdly from WI ( 8-( ). They have rejected moderation needed to actually increase their share of the electorate in favor of chasing a diminishing percentage of white voters while trying to skew or change the voting process to rig elections in their favor. It is only a matter of time before they fire shots in anger. (As a side note, how long before the NSA nabs a cell of GOP types planning a internal terrorist action. It might not get publicised, that would be bad politics.)

David Cornin at Mother Jones had a great article on why they don't just pass a clean CR and why John Bohner can't do it. Strangely, the article was kind of pro John Beohner. Basicaly, They point out that there is nobody second in line that actually wants the job. The teabaggers are happy because they have a very tight leash around JB's balls. Here is the link: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/how-john-boehner-could-lose-his-speakership

Here is a quote from the article on how the process of a rebellion could take place:

Under House rules, a speaker can be challenged at any time. Any of the 435 House members can introduce a bill to boot a speaker—and obtain a quick vote. According to the House rules, "A resolution declaring vacant the office of Speaker is presented as a matter of high constitutional privilege." This means that such a measure essentially goes to the front of the line. It doesn't have to wind its way through the rules committee, where the speaker and his allies could smother the legislation. Nor would this privileged motion require unanimous consent to reach the House floor. A House member need only announce his or her intention to place this resolution on the floor, and the speaker must schedule a vote within two legislative days. The measure then can pass on a majority vote, as long as a quorum (that is, half the House) is present.

....

If Boehner is cast out, the House would have to chose a new speaker, and Boehner could run again. Given the current R-D split of 232 to 200 (with three vacancies), Boehner would need 201 Republican votes to be restored to the post—assuming that the anti-Boehner Republicans do not vote with the Democrats to elect Pelosi or another Democrat as speaker. So Boehner could be pink-slipped as speaker if 16 or so GOPers turn against him (and are joined by all the Dems), but for the second vote Boehner could lose up to 31 Rs and still mount a triumphant return.

 

[michaelskis]

I have been extremely disconnected over the past 48 hours. Can someone explain to me why the bills to fund individual sections of the government failed and why does Harry Reid hate kids with Cancer?

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

I have been extremely disconnected over the past 48 hours. Can someone explain to me why the bills to fund individual sections of the government failed and why does Harry Reid hate kids with Cancer?

Sorry, I tried. I cannot respond to this without a boatload of sarcasm and snark. You got more more things to attended to right now instead of trolling here. Go focus on more important things like your new baby.

 

[Gedunker]

I have been extremely disconnected over the past 48 hours. Can someone explain to me why the bills to fund individual sections of the government failed and why does Harry Reid hate kids with Cancer?

Go ahead folks: FEED THE TROLL!

 

[btrage]

I have been extremely disconnected over the past 48 hours. Can someone explain to me why the bills to fund individual sections of the government failed and why does Harry Reid hate kids with Cancer?

Wow. I don't even no how to respond to this. If the mods don't see this as trolling, then I'll have to bring out my own version of the yellow card.

 

[Planit]

As someone who would like to be a republican (but can't because of obvious ideological issues), I strongly agree with this:

Why do you want to be a 'republican'? Do you like the label but not the contents? Does being a 'democrat' fall in the same (but opposite) lines?

Dude, just be comfortable to be you're own person. You don't need a label with an R or D next to your name. I've been a registered "unaffiliated' since I registered to vote back in the early 80s. Funny thing I actually wanted to put 'independent' on the voter card and they wouldn't let me. Neither party satisfies my own convictions and ideology.

Go ahead folks: FEED THE TROLL!

Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

 

[Maister]

Wow. I don't even no how to respond to this. If the mods don't see this as trolling, then I'll have to bring out my own version of the yellow card.

Given the antagonistic/confrontational nature of the political thread, we tolerate a certain level of trolling from folks who have demonstrated an ability to not let things get too far out of hand. This is a political debate thread...c'mon, someone's gotta troll. As long as it doesn't get personal and as long as someone's not a one-trick pony it's probably okay.

Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

 

[Hink]

Why do you want to be a 'republican'? Do you like the label but not the contents? Does being a 'democrat' fall in the same (but opposite) lines?

Dude, just be comfortable to be you're own person. You don't need a label with an R or D next to your name. I've been a registered "unaffiliated' since I registered to vote back in the early 80s. Funny thing I actually wanted to put 'independent' on the voter card and they wouldn't let me. Neither party satisfies my own convictions and ideology.

I think my point isn't so much as wanting to be labeled as anything, but more that my ideology could fit with a revamped republican party. I am firmly an independent, mainly because I don't like either party for numerous reasons. Unfortunately, this country does not want to make it easy to say neutral, you have to pick an affiliation if you want to vote in the primaries. If I want to vote at an off cycle election I have to have a party attached to my name. Which I think is wrong, but that is how it is.

My bigger point is that the GOP to stay relevant needs me. I don't need them.

The article above is interesting because to me it shows that the republicans are more concerned over the primary races where they aren't conservative enough, and not the general elections, because of the gerrymandering that occurred in 2010. Something like 20% of house republicans are in districts that were won by Obama. Which means 80% don't have any real reason to be reasonable. They are more concerned about the kooky guy that is MORE conservative coming in and taking his / her seat.

As of now, it is a losing proposition. The GOP needs to realize that a push hard to right the ship and fast.

 

[Maister]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130921/POLITICS02/309210047

Looks like Michigan's right to work law is going to be challenged again, this time by lawyers. They actually make a fairly compelling argument that the state bar functions as a union with mandatory membership.

 

[btrage]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130921/POLITICS02/309210047

Looks like Michigan's right to work law is going to be challenged again, this time by lawyers. They actually make a fairly compelling argument that the state bar functions as a union with mandatory membership.

McNeilly lost me when he referred to treating lawyers as "second class citizens".

 

[Planit]

Unfortunately, this country does not want to make it easy to say neutral, you have to pick an affiliation if you want to vote in the primaries. If I want to vote at an off cycle election I have to have a party attached to my name. Which I think is wrong, but that is how it is.

.

Is that the law in ohio? In NC we unaffiliated ones can pick which primary we want to vote in - D or R. I always pick R because this country is very red and I help weed out the loonies, sorry I mean candidates.





Hey don't call midori a second-class citizen.

 

[Maister]

McNeilly lost me when he referred to treating lawyers as "second class citizens".

I take it for what it is - hyperbole.

 

[kjel]

Is that the law in ohio? In NC we unaffiliated ones can pick which primary we want to vote in - D or R. I always pick R because this country is very red and I help weed out the loonies, sorry I mean candidates.





Hey don't call midori a second-class citizen.

Every state is different. In NJ you enter the name of the political party you are affiliated with, but there is no set choice or you can select unaffiliated. If you are an unaffiliated registered voter and wish to vote in a primary you have to choose to affiliate with a party and can do so the day of the primary. Most people that are unaffiliated don't bother to go through that to vote in the primaries though.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Given the antagonistic/confrontational nature of the political thread, we tolerate a certain level of trolling from folks who have demonstrated an ability to not let things get too far out of hand. This is a political debate thread...c'mon, someone's gotta troll. As long as it doesn't get personal and as long as someone's not a one-trick pony it's probably okay.

The problem is that the same Troll keeps eating the pony. Then you keep protecting the troll. Everyone else has to step on egshells but the Troll gets to do what it wants. If your a Troll, you should have to live with the caustic nature of the trollhunters. In whatever form that comes.

as a fun side note...

Have you seen the movie Trollhunter? If you have netflix, check it out. The government moderator/trollhunter has to put the rabid trolls down, literally. Its a fun Norwegian film. Subtitled only.

 

[Hink]

Good times...

http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-cnn-youre-beautiful-but-video-144435053.html

 

[imaplanner]

Go ahead folks: FEED THE TROLL!

I'll use this as an opportunity to pontificate on the nature of trolls. Particularly conservative republican trolls. They don't start out as trolls. No. They start out as people looking for a reason for being. They want to belong. Because at it's core, human existence is about wanting to belong to something. Something more important than the individual. There are different ways to feel like you belong to something important. People inclined to be conservative republican trolls get this sense of purpose by fighting the imaginary liberal boogeyman. Conservative republican trolls will then immerse themselves in the conservative republican media bubble where everything is the liberal boogeymans fault. The liberal boogeyman is everywhere. It's everything that is not a conservative republican. The media bubble repeats these things like "Harry Reid hates kids with cancer". And the conservative republican trolls, having heard this from multiple sources in thr media bubble, will run out and troll with it. Do they believe what they say? Not always, and in the case of this particular troll the answer is most definitely no. But the sense of belonging is overriding. Repeating what the troll hears in his or her precious media bubble gives the troll a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose. Repeating these things they know to be both childish and untrue makes them feel as though they are doing thier part to fight the battle. The battle against the liberal boogeyman. There isn't even any real ideology or core convinctions other than the idea that the liberal boogeyman is responsible for all of the evils in the world. And so the troll continues trolling. It gives the troll the sense of purpose he or she so desperately needs.

 

[ursus]

I think my point isn't so much as wanting to be labeled as anything, but more that my ideology could fit with a revamped republican party. I am firmly an independent, mainly because I don't like either party for numerous reasons.

It's OK, Hink. You're a South Davis County, Jon Huntsman Republican-Lite. You just like in Ohio. Welcome home.

 

[rcgplanner]

I have been extremely disconnected over the past 48 hours. Can someone explain to me why the bills to fund individual sections of the government failed and why does Harry Reid hate kids with Cancer?

The same reason why John Boehner hates newborn babies, keeping WIC unfunded... See two can play at this game.

The real answer, is because the bills to fund the government piecemeal is politics at its worst. The fact that the House is having a popularity contest on which parts of the government should be open is disgusting and insulting. The fact that the EPA and the IRS would be the last things the House would agree to open shows how disconnected they are with reality. This shut down has stopped work on cleaning up of Superfund sites. There is a major deadline coming up on the 15th for those who got extensions on their 2012 taxes. The IRS will begin ramping up their work on prepping for next year's tax season. Just because the GOP may not like the work that a government agency does not make it any less important.

 

[terraplnr]

I just saw that Boehner will do “whatever is necessary” to avoid defaulting on federal debt, but will also not support a “clean” continuing resolution. That would be interesting, if the debt ceiling is raised but the budget standoff continues… Would remove a lot of the Republicans’ “leverage”.

 

[rcgplanner]

After reading some of the comments following the story of the shots fired in DC, saying "this is the first step in the people taking their country back", first I was appaled by some of the comments but then it got me thinking. This has been a common refrain recently, ractched up since 2009 when President Obama was elected. What exactly has been taken from this country since 2009? All I hear is rhetoric about how Obama has destroyed this county, yet I have never heard a cogent list of how our country is now so marketedly different.

Is it something tangible or is it more of an intangible discomfort that things are changing? A discomfort that societial "norms" are changing? A concern that the American populace "looks" differently now? There are these concerns that Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy, yet most calculations have shown that spending has actually decreased under President Obama. Is it the fundamental shift in healthcare policy in this country? Or are talking heads on the right and left just better at their jobs, stirring the pot and making people angry? I am genuniely interested in how this country has so markedly changed since 2009. To me my life hasn't changed negatively in nearly 5 years, at least not in ways that could be directly tied to the monkeys in DC.

 

[imaplanner]

After reading some of the comments following the story of the shots fired in DC, saying "this is the first step in the people taking their country back", first I was appaled by some of the comments but then it got me thinking. This has been a common refrain recently, ractched up since 2009 when President Obama was elected. What exactly has been taken from this country since 2009? All I hear is rhetoric about how Obama has destroyed this county, yet I have never heard a cogent list of how our country is now so marketedly different.
.

I tend to listen to a good amount of right wing talk radio. The taking the country back thing is primarily geared towards this idea that Obama and the democrats are taking our hard earned money and giving it to minorities and illegal aliens who sit around and collect welfare because they don't have the traditional American work ethic.

 

[michaelskis]

This comment is not intended to be trolling, but I would like to know... If you were in the senate, would you approve individual bills to fund parts of the government (that would not change anything regarding Obamacare, or would you require an all or nothing approach? Why would you vote that way?

The Reid comment was trolling because frankly is is just too funny not to comment on. I know he does not feel that way but come on, talk about a stupid thing for him to say.

On a side note, I hope that everyone (both R's and D's) are staying safe right now. Politics aside, there are freaks and nut jobs that are dangerous and just because someone has differing political viewpoints, it does not justify violence.

 

[rcgplanner]

This comment is not intended to be trolling, but I would like to know... If you were in the senate, would you approve individual bills to fund parts of the government (that would not change anything regarding Obamacare, or would you require an all or nothing approach? Why would you vote that way?

The Reid comment was trolling because frankly is is just too funny not to comment on. I know he does not feel that way but come on, talk about a stupid thing for him to say.

On a side note, I hope that everyone (both R's and D's) are staying safe right now. Politics aside, there are freaks and nut jobs that are dangerous and just because someone has differing political viewpoints, it does not justify violence.

I would require an all-or-nothing approach. I am not going to pick and choose which parts of the government I think are worthy of being opened. If you want to have that fight then do it during budget time, not off-the-cuff to score some political points because you are pissed and feel your party is owed something. My job as a member of Congress right now is to get the wheels of government moving again. Bohener has the votes in the House to pass a "clean" CR, yet he refuses to bring it to the floor because they would rather dick around and make a point of how they are the good guys reopening the VA, the National Parks, the NIH, yet protecting us from the scoruge that is the IRS and the EPA. Everyone knows this is just a political ploy and the public is sick of it. Just like delaying Obamacare for one year is a non-starter. They don't want to delay it to fix it, they want to delay it until after the elections next year hoping they have enough new members of Congress to kill it. They know that once people start getting healthcare it will be a lot harder to pull the rug out from them.

The politics the GOP are playing is insulting. Don't like Obamacare? Fine, fix it, don't bitch and moan and shut the government down over it. I will say it again I have yet to hear one proposal from the GOP on what they would replace Obamacare with. They had the opportunity to provide input bact in 2009/2010 when the law was being crafted, yet just like today they sat on the sidelines and pouted like petulant children. Seriously, they are acting worse than a 5 year old. The House leadership has shown no real interest in working with the democrats and the administration in the last 5 years, and it is one reason why Congress has a 10% approval rating. :-@ The GOP needs to wake up and get with the program, the 2012 election was a referendum on the health care law and they lost bad. They need to fix their party or they will lose again in 2014. Poll after poll has shown that the public may be wary of Obamacare, yet few people actually support defunding it. (I know the link is from the Huffington Post, but it includes several polls from different polling agencies that basically say the same thing.)

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

This comment is not intended to be trolling, but I would like to know... If you were in the senate, would you approve individual bills to fund parts of the government (that would not change anything regarding Obamacare, or would you require an all or nothing approach? Why would you vote that way?....

There is only one way this impass can end on a positive note. Democrats have to brick the republicans nearly 100%. The democrats have been squishy for way to long. The only way to stop government through minority crisis is to punch them in the face so hard and so often, it will be at least 18 years before they try it again. The democrats tried being reasonable, and the only thing it got them was continuous disrespect and government through crisis.

Passing individual bills is silly. The Democrats should say "ok, you can open the parks, we get the debt limit raised for oh... 10 years". If they don't get their way, the parks bill doesn't move. See how the GOP likes it. meet every idea of reasonableness with ridiculousness. When the GOP says that is not bargaining or compromising, the democrats should point out their hypocrisy. Maybe they will get the point but I doubt it. The 40 teabaggers in the House shouldn't be allowed to run it.

I like the fact that the dem's aren't giving Boehner any help in pulling his ass out of the mud. They have done it to long. The dem's didn't put us in this situation, give the GOP nothing to get out.

I will make a prediction. By Christmass, SPEAKER SPINELESS, John Boehner will NOT be the speaker of the house. In fact, I bet he retires after he loses his speakership. WORST SPEAKER EVER!

 

[ColoGI]

If you were in the senate, would you approve individual bills to fund parts of the government
.

Sure, if I was into craven, cheap ploys to try and corner the opposition. The Dems are thinking of something similar to force the Repubs hand on their ploy.

 

[michaelskis]

So let me get this right, if there was a stand alone bill to fund the park service, you would rather play politics and keep those people out of work.... Even though passing funding for them has nothing to do with Obamacare.

 

[dw914er]

So let me get this right, if there was a stand alone bill to fund the park service, you would rather play politics and keep those people out of work.... Even though passing funding for them has nothing to do with Obamacare.

People want to fund the park service, as well as the other departments.. but why would anyone want to piecemeal a budget? How does that really help anything, other than potentially drag this minority-held stalemate even longer?