Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/10/01 19:02:33
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
d-usa wrote: Let's make it simple then. Whose election and defeat do you think had anything at all with ObamaCare?
With 62% of voters in 2010 saying the economy was their top issue, and 60% saying the same in 2012 - the health care numbers are 19% and 17%, respectively - I'd say neither of them were referendums on Obamacare.
It's my understanding that health care costs exploding for years and likely continuing to do so unless something was done about it was considered one of the largest economic issues the nation was (and still is) facing.
If that many people viewed them as completely separate, they were either uninformed or weren't thinking far enough ahead.
And before someone bothers to note it; yes, far as I've read, health care costs have still gone up over the last few years.
However, they have also gone up less than they were expected to without the ACA, based on the increase found in previous years.
2013/10/01 19:02:59
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Saw an interesting thing on Facebook, apparently House Representative Ann Wagner (R-MO) is refusing her pay during the time of the shutdown. So I was like, "This can't really be real" Apparently it is.
Several lawmakers are refusing their pay (saw one that was going to donate his pay) until this shutdown occurs. I don't think it'll be that much when you think about it, but if a month passes it could be.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
2013/10/01 19:03:28
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Also, people were asking about congress being a part of the exchanges and whatnot? I found this interesting.
With the federal government nearing shutdown, House Speaker John Boehner stood on the House floor Monday and called on his colleagues to vote for a bill banning a “so-called exemption” that lawmakers and staffers receive for their health insurance. “Why don’t we make sure that every American is treated just like we are?” Boehner asked, seeking to prohibit members of Congress and Capitol Hill aides from getting thousands of dollars in subsidies for their health insurance as they join Obamacare-mandated insurance exchanges.
Yet behind-the-scenes, Boehner and his aides worked for months with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and others, to save these very same, long-standing subsidies, according to documents and e-mails provided to POLITICO. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was also aware of these discussions, the documents show.
During a five-month period stretching from February to July, Boehner and his aides sought along with Reid’s office to solve what had become a big headache for both of them. They drafted and reviewed a possible legislative fix, as well as continued to push for an administrative one from the Office of Personnel Management.
Boehner and Reid, in fact, went so far as to ask to meet with President Barack Obama to lobby him personally for help — using a cover story in order to protect the secrecy of the discussions, according to these documents.
Keep at it Boehner, doing a great job there! *jazz hands*
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/01 19:05:42
2013/10/01 19:05:45
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Seaward wrote: Just because I was curious, I looked up some 2012 exit polling.
Via Politico. Should 2010 Healthcare Law Be Repealed?
Yes: 49%
No: 44%
Looks like a majority didn't vote for anything regarding the ACA. Fun tangent, though.
Want me to pretend that nobody ever posted the further breakdown of those numbers indicating that a large number of those people don't like it because it didn't reform enough?
Want me to post the polls saying that the majority of people didn't want a shutdown over the issue?
Want me to post the polls saying that the Republicans are shouldering the majority of the blame here?
Want me to post the polls saying that the people want more gun control?
Want me to post all your posts talking about how we are not a direct democracy and majority rule shouldn't happen like that?
Or you wanna keep on this train of thought?
Polls smolls...
Kinda a little useless now until maybe after Jan 1st.
American voters oppose 72 - 22 percent Congress shutting down the federal government to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
Voters also oppose 64 - 27 percent blocking an increase in the nation's debt ceiling as a way to stop Obamacare, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
American voters are divided on Obamacare, with 45 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed, but they are opposed 58 - 34 percent to Congress cutting off funding for the health care law to stop its implementation.
.....
"Americans are certainly not in love with Obamacare, but they reject decisively the claim by Congressional Republicans that it is so bad that it's worth closing down the government to stop it," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
Favor ACA Bill: 38%
Oppose ACA Bill because it is too liberal: 39%
Oppose ACA bill because it's not liberal enough: 11%
No Opinion: 13%
...
13. Suppose the federal government had to shut down for a few days because Congress did not pass a
new spending bill. Would you consider that a good thing for the country or a bad thing for the
country?
Good thing 27%
Bad thing 68%
Neutral/mixed (vol.) 4%
No opinion 1%
14. Now suppose the federal government had to shut down for a few weeks because Congress did not
pass a new spending bill. Would you consider that a good thing for the country or a bad thing for
the country?
Good thing 19%
Bad thing 79%
Neutral/mixed (vol.) 2%
No opinion *
15. If the federal government shuts down, do you think that Barack Obama or the Republicans in
Congress would be more responsible for that?
Obama 36%
Republicans in Congress 46%
Both (vol.) 13%
Neither (vol.) 2%
No opinion 2%
16. Which do you think is more important for Congress to do -- (RANDOM ORDER)
Approving a budget agreement that would avoid a government shutdown, or 60%
Preventing major provisions in the new health care law from taking effect by cutting the funds needed to implement them 34%
Both equal (vol.) 2%
No opinion 3%
d-usa wrote: Let's make it simple then. Whose election and defeat do you think had anything at all with ObamaCare?
With 62% of voters in 2010 saying the economy was their top issue, and 60% saying the same in 2012 - the health care numbers are 19% and 17%, respectively - I'd say neither of them were referendums on Obamacare.
So you agree that all the House Republicans screaming "we were send here to get rid of ObamaCare" are full of crap then?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/01 19:06:49
2013/10/01 19:07:22
Subject: Republicans Claim Democrats "Unwilling To Negotiate" Over Legislation Passed In 2009
I'm not suggesting anything beyond that the statement, "A majority of people voted for the ACA," is incorrect.
Alright, I'm not suggesting it. I'm outright stating it. Precisely because we don't have a direct democracy.
Well, it's an accurate statement, but it really carries no weight in this discussion. Practically nothing the government does goes directly to the people. The people vote for representatives, who then legislate and execute the laws.
What is not an inaccurate statement though, is this: "Based upon the structure of the American political system, and the results of the elections, it can be surmised that the public does not oppose the ACA enough to ensure its removal."
The result, based upon it being voted on and passed in 2010, is that it ought to remain in place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/01 19:10:29
2013/10/01 19:10:09
Subject: Republicans Claim Democrats "Unwilling To Negotiate" Over Legislation Passed In 2009
DogofWar1 wrote: Well, it's an accurate statement, but it really carries no weight in this discussion. Practically nothing the government does goes directly to the people. The people vote for representatives, who then legislate and execute the laws.
What is not an inaccurate statement though, is this: "Based upon the structure of the American political system, and the results of the elections, it can be surmised that the public does not oppose the ACA enough to ensure its removal."
That even has the added benefit of not having to talk yourself into a corner claiming that presidential elections are national referendums on every single aspect of a given candidate's issues profile.
2013/10/01 19:18:11
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Seaward wrote: Just because I was curious, I looked up some 2012 exit polling.
Via Politico. Should 2010 Healthcare Law Be Repealed?
Yes: 49%
No: 44%
Looks like a majority didn't vote for anything regarding the ACA. Fun tangent, though.
Want me to pretend that nobody ever posted the further breakdown of those numbers indicating that a large number of those people don't like it because it didn't reform enough?
Want me to post the polls saying that the majority of people didn't want a shutdown over the issue?
Want me to post the polls saying that the Republicans are shouldering the majority of the blame here?
Want me to post the polls saying that the people want more gun control?
Want me to post all your posts talking about how we are not a direct democracy and majority rule shouldn't happen like that?
Or you wanna keep on this train of thought?
Polls smolls...
Kinda a little useless now until maybe after Jan 1st.
American voters oppose 72 - 22 percent Congress shutting down the federal government to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
Voters also oppose 64 - 27 percent blocking an increase in the nation's debt ceiling as a way to stop Obamacare, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
American voters are divided on Obamacare, with 45 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed, but they are opposed 58 - 34 percent to Congress cutting off funding for the health care law to stop its implementation.
.....
"Americans are certainly not in love with Obamacare, but they reject decisively the claim by Congressional Republicans that it is so bad that it's worth closing down the government to stop it," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
Favor ACA Bill: 38%
Oppose ACA Bill because it is too liberal: 39%
Oppose ACA bill because it's not liberal enough: 11%
No Opinion: 13%
...
13. Suppose the federal government had to shut down for a few days because Congress did not pass a
new spending bill. Would you consider that a good thing for the country or a bad thing for the
country?
Good thing 27%
Bad thing 68%
Neutral/mixed (vol.) 4%
No opinion 1%
14. Now suppose the federal government had to shut down for a few weeks because Congress did not
pass a new spending bill. Would you consider that a good thing for the country or a bad thing for
the country?
Good thing 19%
Bad thing 79%
Neutral/mixed (vol.) 2%
No opinion *
15. If the federal government shuts down, do you think that Barack Obama or the Republicans in
Congress would be more responsible for that?
Obama 36%
Republicans in Congress 46%
Both (vol.) 13%
Neither (vol.) 2%
No opinion 2%
16. Which do you think is more important for Congress to do -- (RANDOM ORDER)
Approving a budget agreement that would avoid a government shutdown, or 60%
Preventing major provisions in the new health care law from taking effect by cutting the funds needed to implement them 34%
Both equal (vol.) 2%
No opinion 3%
Eh... I'd bet they'd all wildly fluctuate... where's 538 when you need him?
BaronIveagh wrote: Regardless of all the idiocy surrounding it, the main thing that Republicans don't seem to want is ACA to actually work. (Assuming it does).
Well... if it does work. I would like to go ahead and thank all the young ones signing up. It wouldn't be successful with them paying more than they've ever had during their "healthy" years.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/01 19:22:58
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Frazzled wrote: The Republicans are shooting themselves n the face on this. Its like watching a toddler having a screaming fit in the middle of a restaurant.
I agree with you on this one, Frazzled!
2013/10/01 19:27:13
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Well... if it does work. I would like to go ahead and thank all the young ones signing up. It wouldn't be successful with them paying more than they've ever had during their "healthy" years.
Didn't they say the same thing about Social Security?
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2013/10/01 19:34:11
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Well... if it does work. I would like to go ahead and thank all the young ones signing up. It wouldn't be successful with them paying more than they've ever had during their "healthy" years.
Didn't they say the same thing about Social Security?
SS was originally meant to be temporary... so no, not really.
Today? Yeah, it's the young'un keep it afloat.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/01 19:39:25
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Young'uns are keeping SS afloat because the taxable income for SS purposes is 6.2% of the first $106k, and nothing beyond that. If that cap was removed, you would see SS largely stabilize itself.
2013/10/01 19:42:32
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
DogofWar1 wrote: Young'uns are keeping SS afloat because the taxable income for SS purposes is 6.2% of the first $106k, and nothing beyond that. If that cap was removed, you would see SS largely stabilize itself.
Yup... wholeheartedly agree with ya.
Also, redefine what "income" truly is...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/01 19:43:00
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Kilkrazy wrote: That's not the way it works. You vote for your representative based on what they say they will do. If they don't live up to it you get the chance to vote them out four years later.
We have elections every 2 years.
So... are you saying that we should "shut up", except when we vote?
You were the one who proposed "shut up" as an option.
I assume that people lobby their representative between elections, however the chance to vote him out comes at the next election.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's not the way it works. You vote for your representative based on what they say they will do. If they don't live up to it you get the chance to vote them out four years later.
We have elections every 2 years.
So... are you saying that we should "shut up", except when we vote?
You were the one who proposed "shut up" as an option.
I assume that people lobby their representative between elections, however the chance to vote him out comes at the next election.
Right... then... I'm not sure what's your point then.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/01 19:45:52
Subject: Re: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Can see some serious die hard democrats and republicans in here.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2013/10/01 19:46:05
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
BaronIveagh wrote: Regardless of all the idiocy surrounding it, the main thing that Republicans don't seem to want is ACA to actually work. (Assuming it does).
Well... if it does work. I would like to go ahead and thank all the young ones signing up. It wouldn't be successful with them paying more than they've ever had during their "healthy" years.
Just like ALL insurance.
Keep in mind, Obamacare just mandates you to buy Health Coverage from someone, but that someone is not the Federal government*.
*= Some exceptions apply for Medicare/Medicaid and some governemnt employees.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/10/01 19:47:02
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
whembly wrote: So... are you saying that we should "shut up", except when we vote?
I can't find a cite for this, but as I recall George W. Bush said something very similar to this. It was much more polite, but that was the essence of it. I believe it was a discussion about war protesters, and how they can express their opinion once every 4 years. Man, I wish I could find the exact quote.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2013/10/01 19:50:52
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
whembly wrote: So... are you saying that we should "shut up", except when we vote?
I can't find a cite for this, but as I recall George W. Bush said something very similar to this. It was much more polite, but that was the essence of it. I believe it was a discussion about war protesters, and how they can express their opinion once every 4 years. Man, I wish I could find the exact quote.
I do remember that... because I've had some debates on this on some old blog political blog sites.
I had a major problem with it as well.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/01 19:53:10
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Kilkrazy wrote: That's not the way it works. You vote for your representative based on what they say they will do. If they don't live up to it you get the chance to vote them out four years later.
We have elections every 2 years.
So... are you saying that we should "shut up", except when we vote?
You were the one who proposed "shut up" as an option.
I assume that people lobby their representative between elections, however the chance to vote him out comes at the next election.
Right... then... I'm not sure what's your point then.
You started it. If you don't know your own point and can't explain it, I don't think there is much I can to help.
The sad thing about this government shutdown business is all this is just leading to the another debt ceiling fight (sometime mid October), which has much worse consequences than the shutdown. You know US defaulting on its debt for the first time in history sort of deal.
Like John Stewart said in with respect to Syria we are back in 7th grade. Democrats don't wanna cave because then the mean bullies will beat them up and take their lunch money.
If either side caves they lose "credibility" on the debt ceiling fight.
Though an interesting point here is that if the House just voted on the clean bill the senate passed, it would probably pass in the house, on mostly Democrats votes. But we can't have that, it make Republicans look weak and the mean bullies will beat them up and take their lunch money.
Sigh......
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/01 20:03:03
2013/10/01 19:58:00
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Kilkrazy wrote: That's not the way it works. You vote for your representative based on what they say they will do. If they don't live up to it you get the chance to vote them out four years later.
We have elections every 2 years.
So... are you saying that we should "shut up", except when we vote?
You were the one who proposed "shut up" as an option.
I assume that people lobby their representative between elections, however the chance to vote him out comes at the next election.
Right... then... I'm not sure what's your point then.
You started it. If you don't know your own point and can't explain it, I don't think there is much I can to help.
Uh... I'm responding to your two statement:
The remedy is in the people's own hands.
1. Vote differently at the next election.
2. Change the constitution to make single issue voting more effective.
I'm try to read between the lines... because, this smacks to me as "shut up, you've had your chance". If I'm taking you the wrong way... then, much apologies.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/01 20:02:03
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
whembly wrote: So... are you saying that we should "shut up", except when we vote?
I can't find a cite for this, but as I recall George W. Bush said something very similar to this. It was much more polite, but that was the essence of it. I believe it was a discussion about war protesters, and how they can express their opinion once every 4 years. Man, I wish I could find the exact quote.
I do remember that... because I've had some debates on this on some old blog political blog sites.
I had a major problem with it as well.
The part that annoyed me the most about what he said is that, well, he was right. Technically right, which is the best kind of right. I mean, I didn't like hearing it, but that is indeed the functional truth.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2013/10/01 20:10:53
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
whembly wrote: So... are you saying that we should "shut up", except when we vote?
I can't find a cite for this, but as I recall George W. Bush said something very similar to this. It was much more polite, but that was the essence of it. I believe it was a discussion about war protesters, and how they can express their opinion once every 4 years. Man, I wish I could find the exact quote.
I do remember that... because I've had some debates on this on some old blog political blog sites.
I had a major problem with it as well.
The part that annoyed me the most about what he said is that, well, he was right. Technically right, which is the best kind of right. I mean, I didn't like hearing it, but that is indeed the functional truth.
Eh... technically, yeah he was right. But I remember it being that you should support your officials regardless what they do during their governance. Which I objected to... there's nothing wrong yammering at your elected officials whenever they do something you don't like.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/10/01 20:16:45
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Ok, one thing that I don't get about this shutdown - the Republicans finally settled on wanting to defer the ACA for, what was it, a year. That was met by scorn from the Democrats saying that it was illegal and unconstitutional, and that the will of the people had to be respected because Romney ran against the ACA and was defeated...... yet the Democrats deferred its implementation themselves previously.
What I am missing from this scenario?
2013/10/01 20:49:29
Subject: Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Ok, one thing that I don't get about this shutdown - the Republicans finally settled on wanting to defer the ACA for, what was it, a year. That was met by scorn from the Democrats saying that it was illegal and unconstitutional, and that the will of the people had to be respected because Romney ran against the ACA and was defeated...... yet the Democrats deferred its implementation themselves previously.
What I am missing from this scenario?
Because... Republicans are evil. Get with the program.
