(Advertisement)

House votes to stall health law one year

Federal shutdown looms as Democrats spurn deal

Posted: September 29, 2013 at 5:16 a.m.

Dark clouds hang over the U.S. Capitol on Saturday where the House of Representatives debated a plan to try to delay President Barack Obama’s health-care law for a year.

Republicans rallied around a budget plan late Saturday to keep the government open but delay the new healthcare law for a year, storming toward a showdown with Democrats that looked increasingly likely to shut down the government when the current fiscal year ends Monday night.

This story is only available from our archives.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 09/29/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Shots killed mother, dreams of a lifetime

Eric Olson watches over his daughter, Linnea, at their home in North Little Rock. The toughest part of his wife Samantha’s death, he said, “is completely accepting the reality of it,” adding: “There are these moments of like, man, she’s not coming back.”

Someday, a little girl named Linnea Olson will peer into the contents of a trunk filled with her mother’s favo... Read »

Next Story »

Realtors struggle in wake of oil leak at Mayf...

A real estate broker in Mayflower says efforts to buy and sell homes in Mayflower have been not been easy since an ExxonMobil Pegasus Pipeline ruptured in March and spilled... Read »

The House has done their job funding the government. Now it's the Senate Democrats turn to do their part to avoid a shutdown Tuesday morning.

Posted by: footballfan

September 29, 2013 at 12:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This newspaper conglomerate is clearly a well-integrated part of the so-called "liberalmedia". Not only does it not ask questions or challenge the people it favors, it goes so far as to misquote people and provide misinformation.

These papers show why the standard for truth in the court system is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". That's three strikes and out for WEHCO/Stephens Media.

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 29, 2013 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My previous comment seems to have been misplaced by the forum software, as I can't replicate a user error that would have the same result. It belongs here:
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/se...

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 29, 2013 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And what part is that, footballfan?
They're supposed to roll over and play dead.

Posted by: Coralie

September 29, 2013 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"n 2008, Barack Obama campaigned on reforming health care. He won. In 2012 he owned Obamacare and trumpeted it as his signature accomplishment. He won.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, along with just about every Republican who entered the race for president in 2012, put repealing Obamacare at the center of their campaign. They fought over who would do it faster. They lost.

Here we are in 2013 and the out of touch, fanatical Tea Party wing of the Republican Party refuses to honor the results of the 2012 election. They are undemocratic radicals who would shut down the government to reverse the will of the American people."
https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#...

Posted by: Coralie

September 29, 2013 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Here is a link to the source of the material Coralie linked to above:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinio...

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 29, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The law initially passed without any bipartisan support. Without super-majorities in the House and Senate it never would have passed in the first place. Obama's re-election had nothing to do with Obamacare, but with deceitful "Hope and Change" that the majority of Americans have firmly rejected in every poll except biased progressive liberal ones.

I say delay it for a year to study it and "fix it up" before subjecting people to it because in it's current form it is too dangerous to run. Then delay it for another year tweaking and perfecting it. The American people deserve no less.

That will get us to 2014 when like Austria in their recent national elections where liberals got their butts handed to them and went from a majority to a 27% minority. At that point more rational politicians can repeal it altogether.

Now that's a plan!

Posted by: jeffieboy

September 30, 2013 at 11:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Republicans are shrinking and this is simply more evidence of their slow, inevitable, last ditch shrinkage.

Republicans get the blame for any shutdown:

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/...

Posted by: cdawg

September 30, 2013 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dream on Doggie. Only in your mind, my friend. It isn't just here. It is an international trend.

Posted by: jeffieboy

September 30, 2013 at 12:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks for the right link, AlphaCat.
I must have been falling to sleep.

Posted by: Coralie

September 30, 2013 at 2:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Obama's re-election had nothing to do with Obamacare, but with deceitful "Hope and Change" that the majority of Americans have firmly rejected"
Whine and carp all you like. If Bush had a "mandate", Obama was elected by a landslide. And Obama didn't run on "Hope and Change" in 2012. (It is no surprise that you don't know this.) He was reelected handily, running specifically on the merits of Obamacare. Every Republican candidate promised to dismantle Obamacare. None of them won. Handily.

RE "Now that's a plan!"
If you were really confident that Obamacare is bad and lacks popular support, you would want it fully in force in time for the 2014 elections. But you are not confident. Republicans and conservatives are wetting themselves in fear that their objections to Obamacare will be revealed as the sham they are.

If the government is shut down, 2014 will not be an exact repeat of the 1996 elections; it will go even worse for Republicans.

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 30, 2013 at 2:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"What Ted Cruz is doing is pure Reaganism, without the sunny disposition and the increasingly befogged rationalizations. Cruz is its predictable evolutionary product."

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics...

Posted by: cdawg

September 30, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yeah, they get the blame and have to sleep on the couch for limiting what you put on the way over the limit credit card? Brilliant. Actually not so brilliant...typical is a better description. Typical irresponsibility.

Posted by: jeffieboy

September 30, 2013 at 3:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, footballfan, the House passed a bill, but it failed in its job. It doesn't succeed until the Senate passes the same one and the President signs it.

House fails so far.

Posted by: ecsmith2

September 30, 2013 at 3:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffieboy, Ted Cruz spent 21 hours, uninterrupted, and had nothing of any substance about why the PPACA should be repealed or defunded or even delayed.

Have you got nothing, also?

Posted by: ecsmith2

September 30, 2013 at 3:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Senate rejects House amendments to spending bill as shutdown looms"

3:30 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politic...

Posted by: cdawg

September 30, 2013 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Ted Cruz spent 21 hours, uninterrupted, and had nothing of any substance about why the PPACA should be repealed ..

Well, he did mention that Chamberlain-England had coddled the Fuhrer. Surely that counts for something.

Posted by: cdawg

September 30, 2013 at 3:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cruz had nothing of interest to say to progressive liberals. I though he had a lot of interesting things to say. But then again, Harry Reid will probably cut off any debate on a budget and he and Obama will blame republicans because both already vowed not to negotiate even before the house met on Saturday. Sounds a bit like the "He hit me after I hit him back" philosophy to me. More senseless progressive logic. Not hard too see through. I don't care which party does it as long as the obamination that is ACA dies.

Posted by: jeffieboy

September 30, 2013 at 4:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>> Harry Reid will probably cut off any debate on a budget and he and Obama will blame republicans because both already vowed not to negotiate even before the house met on Saturday. Sounds a bit like the "He hit me after I hit him back" philosophy to me.<<

You wish.

Good for America that most of us can see thru the bullsh*t and spin. What these radical Republicans are trying to do is legislate via the budget.

They could choose to "de fund" any lawful Act of Congress if their current tactic is allowed.

They could de fund
-Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and any/all programs based upon it and thus put an end to the SEC overnight;

-National Security Act and end Nat Security Council and CIA in one move;

-Agriculture Adjustment Act and do away with the Farm Bill every five years.

- Social Security Act and all Amendments to it including Medicare and Medicare Part D. End those programs overnight.

What these radicals are attempting to do is plainly not valid. If they elect a bonafide majority in both houses of Congress plus the president they can then repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act through lawful process.

What they are currently doing is plainly and simply refusing to fund government operations. Period.

Posted by: cdawg

September 30, 2013 at 4:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

One party, one group, cannot do what Mr. President? They sure can. Just did looks like. What? You got and executive order for that? A emperor's decree? Nope. Sorry about that. Don't think so.

But one thing is certain, if you can't get Harry and John to get along you will do everything in your power to make the lack of government funding as dramatic and painful for the American people as possible rather than do your job, prioritize, and protect them and all those government workers that are more equal than other Americans. Of that we can be sure.

Full faith, turst and cofidence in the US Government? Many haven't had that for the last 8 years and what little I had evaporated 6 years ago when you were elected. I saw you coming when I noticed your crafty lack of the use of nouns in your campaign speeches.

Thankfully it doesn't matter much to me because I'm ready for you. I saw you coming and financially have prepared accordingly. As long as the "shutdown" doesn't last at least 18 years I'm good. Do your worst. I ain't scared. Paritisan hyperbole is useless even though it may be the only card you have left to play.

Remember, The ACA passed without a single bipartisan vote. If you weren't such a rookie and so full of yourself you would have seen this battle coming and been a little better prepared. Now it's too late. Poor Barry.

Posted by: jeffieboy

September 30, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Remember, The ACA passed without a single bipartisan vote.

Keyword: "Passed."

Nowhere does any document say Acts of Congress must be PASSED with bipartisan votes.

Posted by: cdawg

September 30, 2013 at 6:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha: "If Bush had a "mandate", Obama was elected by a landslide.">>

Let's underline that with this footnote:

"Barack Obama is the first president in more than five decades to win at least 51 percent of the national popular vote twice,... " http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01...

And besides winning the electoral vote handily, he got more votes than Bush got in either one of his elections. http://www.latinospost.com/articles/6...

Also note: "The Democrats won 50.6% of the votes for president, to 47.8% for the Republicans; 53.6% of the votes for the Senate, to 42.9% for the Republicans; and…49% of the votes for the House, to 48.2% for the Republicans."
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

And that's only going to get better as the demographics continue to kick right-wing behind. That little pack of wingnuts in one half of one branch of government will only be able to gerrymander their way in for a little while. Then it's over. Oh, and lookie at the job everyone thinks they are doing:

"Poll: Congress approval at 10 percent"
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09...

Nice.

Jeffie says: 'The ACA passed without a single bipartisan vote.">>

But that's only going to haunt them as it because a greatly appreciated program, saving trillions of dollars and millions of lives.

This is their big nightmare: https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.ne...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 30, 2013 at 8:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ted Cruz has a 61% lie ratio. Isn't that something.... And he lies the most when he is talking about healthcare, then it's all lies:

"Of his... 13 statements proven to not be true according to Politifact, seven of them related to Obamacare. Meaning that in his time in the Senate, and on his campaign to “defund Obamacare,” Politifact hasn’t found any of his “big statements” about Obamacare to be true.
Let that sink in for just a moment. The leading Republican advocate against Obamacare hasn’t been found to have said one truthful meaningful statement about the health care law, out of seven statements that have been fact-checked. In fact, an analysis of his statements only proves that when speaking about the health care law—he’s lying."
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/a-...

And this is the driver of the congressional clown car that our resident wingnuts are looking to for their healthcare information? Well that certainly explains a lot doesn't it.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 30, 2013 at 8:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Finish the article
President Obama’s own approval rating has taken a dip in recent weeks, down to 44 percent from 53 percent in May. The administration had a long summer of setbacks, following the revelations of sweeping surveillance powers by the National Security Agency.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09...

Conveniently left out by FFT.

Posted by: P5harri

September 30, 2013 at 9:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think this fellow in The Guardian answers the question quite accurately:

***
Q: who's to blame for government shutdown?
A: the Republican party

Excerpt:
"There is one party that is solely to blame for the first government shutdown in 17 years. And it's the Republican party.

Indeed, the debate happening in Washington right now is not even between Democrats and Republicans. It's not even about the deficit, or the budget, or government spending priorities. Rather, it is one strictly occurring between Republicans who are trying to find some magic bullet to destroy "Obamacare" – the country's fiscal health be damned.

In the House of Representatives, bills that would allow the government to continue to operate were amended with provisions defunding or delaying Obamacare. This is, for Democrats, a nonstarter. The reason is obvious: the Affordable Care Act is the president's signature achievement and he is not going to sign a bill that undoes or even delays it.

Nor should he. Obamacare is the law of the land. It was passed by Congress, signed by the president, upheld by the US supreme court, and it is already going into effect. There is no reason for President Obama to be cowed by such legislative extortion.

Yet, rather than accept the reality of Obamacare, Republicans are using the prospect of a government shutdown and/or a default on the nation's debt to try to stop it.

In key respects, this dispiriting series of events is the logical conclusion of the Republican party's descent into madness. The GOP has become a party dominated by a group of politicians who are fundamentally nihilistic, contemptuous of democracy and willing (even proud) to operate outside the long-accepted norms of American democracy."

The rest:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisf...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 30, 2013 at 9:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh boo, P5 wants to make a big taa doo that Obama has a 44% poll approval? Let's check:

"Poll: Congress approval at 10 percent"
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09...

Oops, wrong one. So sorry about the error. You weren't talking about that pack of winners.

Regarding the good president, an average of the last ten Gallup polls (back to July) give him an average favorability rating of 55%.
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fa...

When we look at the last ten for "job approval"...
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_jo...

it's about 45% and as that link shows, it was not in any way an average of "53% in May." That's nonsense and just blatant sour cherry picking. Don't do that.

P5: "following the revelations of sweeping... [blah blah]">>

All of your scandals that held such hope for you fizzled, when they didn't completely blow up in your face. They might have misinformed a lot of people and caused his poll rankings to take a point or two hit (big deal) but you ended up getting bupkis in the end because there was nothing there.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bupkis

D.
------------------
"The only reasons anyone would rail against the Affordable Healthcare law are...
— Misled/misinformed (i.e. people who have not read the law.)
— Not insured and relying on the rest of us to pay for their health care when they leave doctors and/or hospitals holding the bag.
— Folks that have forgotten the core principle of their major faith.
— Cheap, uncaring employers
— Lobbyist for said employers
— Elected officials being bought by said Lobbyist.
— Folks who are against anything from either the government, a progressive (meaning going forward), the President, or ideas from anyone that is not caucasian." --Dennis

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 30, 2013 at 10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Regarding the good president, an average of the last ten Gallup polls (back to July) give him an average favorability rating of 55%"

This shows an clear lack of understanding of polls and Presidents.

A President is only as good as his latest poll shows..

On a brighter note, the polls also show that Obama is losing Democratic suuport as well....

Sorry not my scandals, I don't believe you can find a post from me with an opinion on the scandals. It was a quote from the same article, not me... Try to keep up....

As far as Obamacare, I really don't have an opinion either way, it's really not that important to me. I have bigger things to worry about...

Posted by: P5harri

October 1, 2013 at 6:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"There is no reason for President Obama to be cowed by such legislative extortion."

Extortion is a buzzword used by the progressives who wish to create a boogey man.

"But there’s nothing wrong with continuing to resist Obamacare even though it has been on the books for three years. What would be strange is if Republicans ended their opposition to it. The law was, after all, passed over almost-unanimous Republican objections. Other large government programs haven’t seen as sustained a campaign against them, but they had more bipartisan support at the outset. Obamacare was unpopular with the public when it passed, and it has only become more so. Republicans generally think it will have bad effects on the economy and on health care. And it isn’t yet entrenched. Why wouldn’t they keep opposing it? "

Bloomberg, 9/30/2103

As far as your comment about ":the Affordable Care Act is the president's signature achievement and he is not going to sign a bill that undoes or even delays it."

Obamacare Employer Mandate Delayed For One Year - Huffington post

Evidently it vwas OK to delay the Business end, just not the individual requirement.

:

Posted by: P5harri

October 1, 2013 at 9:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "Evidently it vwas OK to delay the Business end, just not the individual requirement.'>>

Isn't wonderful how they complain when it's enacted and enforced and then they complain when waivers are used to make the adjustment and transition more workable? Can't win with these people, they are just going to complain either way.

[quote] "Obamacare was unpopular... and it has only become more so.">>

That's not true. The $400 million the Koch Bros. & Co. has purchased a lot of misinformation and smear of course but the more people actually know about the law, the more they like it.

All in one chart: http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Happy Obamacare Healthcare Exchanges day!

D.
---------------
"The 1100 or so waivers are to organizations who ALREADY MEET Obamacare's requirements. The delay in the corporate mandate is to allow companies sufficient time to get their existing coverage house in order. Mostly for employees who already have healthcare coverage.
The personal mandate phase is to provide coverage for people who don't have any insurance and need it as soon as possible.
The GOP is still fighting for the health insurance lobby, that is all." --Lahonda

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 1, 2013 at 11:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Republicans generally think it will have bad effects on the economy and on health care. And it isn’t yet entrenched. Why wouldn’t they keep opposing it?"
Because they're opposing it to gain political points. If Obamacare were really as bad is is claimed, they would gain far more political points by letting it go into full effect. They know it isn't.

Steve Womack posted in his congressional blog on 6 September:
"Even though this law is a train wreck, attaching legislation such as H.R. 2682 to a continuing resolution (CR) is not the way to go about dismantling the law.

"Why?

"Because doing so would require the House to take hostage the rest of the government and require us to shoot it."

What changed? Why, the Teabaggers went into tantrum mode, and Mr. Womack had to join them.

RE "Evidently it vwas OK to delay the Business end, just not the individual requirement."
Note that the Treasury Department-- part of the executive branch-- delayed the employer mandate section of the PPACA. It was not delayed by Congress. In any case, very few businesses-- about four percent of all businesses in the country-- are affected by Obamacare. Far more uninsured and underinsured people are served through the individual mandate. The marketplaces created by the individual mandate will do the most good for the most people.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 1, 2013 at 11:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What scares me most about the Teabaggers is they are proof the system is truly well broken.

Why? It's simple in 2010 and 2012, due to a combination of Gerrymandering and Tea Party candidates knocking incumbents out of the primary we got he answer to the old question "What would happen if people really did vote everyone* out." (Yes, I know not all of them were voted out but enough were to bind up Congress). So many new people, so little experience in the give-and-take of actual governing but the worst part is they don't have much more of a clue about Civics than the people who elected them.

I'm sorry I don't have any easy answers, we certainly do NOT want career politicians but our original electoral system was created based on the understanding that the general populous doesn't have a good grasp of Civics.

Over time the laws regarding the election of the President and Senate have changed, the laws protecting voting rights and districting have been eroded but those changes have out-paced the knowledge of the voters. This may not be a coincidence...

How did people as clueless and closed-minded as Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman, Scott Walker, Rick Scott, etc even make this far? It seems to me, with campaign finance in the state it is, it doesn't take a vast conspiracy in a district to get a moran elected. All it takes is a few deep-pocketed people to get the ball rolling and "Presto!"

Posted by: Nilatir

October 1, 2013 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Demand for ObamaCare information is HIGH in Arkansas and elsewhere around the USA:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire...

Here's the overwhelming response report in Arkansas:

"On my recent check of the website for signup, it was up and running. And, as Brian Chilson's photos show, lots of Arkansans are anxious to take advantage of help being provided by the Insurance Department. Young people. People with children. They've been reached despite the Republican-controlled Legislative Council's effort to squelch advertising of the new program. . . . . .

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/...

Posted by: cdawg

October 1, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The Borderer Legacy Haunts America" by Joe Bageant.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/B...

"Americans have always described themselves in Borderer terms and values....With the neo-conservative takeover of American politics, this has intensified, and we see a supercharging of these themes in the forms of fanatical religiosity, hatred of government, bellicose piety....
busily dismantling the mainspring of their hated government, the U.S. Constitution..."

"Ever hateful of authority and government, we working class products of Borderer values have remained useful to the rich and the politically ambitious in the ensuing 260 years....
During the Civil War [we] died to protect slavery on behalf of the elite (40% of all wealth in the South was in the form of slaves held by the elite.)

Later during the Jim Crow era we Virginia Borderers were indispensable to the Harry Flood Byrd political machine ....
We shut down the state's public schools and sent our kids to school in the church basements during Byrd's 'massive resistance' campaign [against school desegregation].

And to this day we can be counted upon for bellicose objection to such government oppression as health care for the poor, equitable taxation on the rich, fair labor practices, seatbelts, environmental laws, and stopping state line gun sales to out-of-state urban criminals."

Posted by: Coralie

October 1, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphC: "about four percent of all businesses in the country-- are affected by Obamacare. Far more uninsured and underinsured people are served through the individual mandate.">>

That's right. About 18 million people who have been black balled or unable to access health insurance will now be able to do so.

That six times the population of Arkansas. That's a Big F-ing Deal.

"48 Million Americans Are Uninsured Ahead Of Obamacare Changes"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09...

Many of these people are desperate to get in the system, contribute toward their healthcare cost and not be one of the 20,000 that die every year due to lack of access to the system (National Academy of Science... http://tinyurl.com/ygolle3 ).

When Canada fixed this in 1966, the vote was unanimous. These idiotic Teabaggers wouldn't agree with the other side if the question was if water is wet. The ACA isn't remotely as socialized and government run as the Canadian single payer system but apparently even allowing our wasteful private system to stay intact is even unacceptable. I have Canadians contacting me and asking if this country is out of it's freaking mind. Why such a controversy about allowing some of the 48 million without access, to get some coverage? The world watches in amazement as we get to see how unbridled greed will make humans do inhumane things.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.ne...

Rarely do we get to see how the conservative struggle to pretend they can experience the human attribute of empathy, so clearly. A comedian once said the US is a high school. That's not quite right. Here in red state central, it's at the developmental level of an elementary school.

D.
-------------------
The shutdown could prevent kids with cancer from getting treatment:
"...the National Institutes of Health will turn away roughly 200 patients each week from its clinical research center, including children with cancer."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...

Smooth move Womack and Boozeman.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 1, 2013 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

72% of Americans oppose Shutting Down Gov to Stop ACA:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/hotlin...

Posted by: cdawg

October 1, 2013 at 10:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The skies will clear when Obama, Reid, and Pelosi leave town.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 1, 2013 at 11:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

that's it J-Boy, dream on.
.

"I was there, fighting the fight, one of twelve, voting against Medicare, because we knew it wouldn't work
in 1965."
--Sen Bob Dole

"Now, we didn't get rid of it in round one because we didn't think it's politically smart...But we believe Medicare is going to wither on the vine.
--Rep Newt Gringrich, Oct 24, 1995.

Posted by: cdawg

October 2, 2013 at 1:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

that's it J-Boy, dream on.

"I was there, fighting the fight, one of twelve, voting against Medicare, because we knew it wouldn't work
in 1965."
--Sen Bob Dole

"Now, we didn't get rid of it in round one because we didn't think it's politically smart...But we believe Medicare is going to wither on the vine.
--Rep Newt Gringrich, Oct 24, 1995.

Posted by: cdawg

October 2, 2013 at 1:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"72% of Americans oppose Shutting Down Gov to Stop ACA:"

Same poll:

Overall, the poll shows voters are split on the health care law: 45 percent support it, while 47 percent oppose it.

Posted by: P5harri

October 2, 2013 at 7:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg - Medicare didn't 'wither on the vine' so to speak, it became a monster that couldn't be sustained, and now we have another monstrosity in play. Government - get out of our private lives!

Government cannot control the fraud and abuse in any government program, even if it was a good plan to begin with.

Posted by: mycentworth

October 2, 2013 at 7:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, I did a little experiment when I went out for milk and Redd's Apple Ale early this morning. I asked about a dozen people I encountered at Braham's and Wal Mart what they thought about the Affordable Health Act. Most gave me a puzzled look until I said it was "Obamacare".

Their responses were exactly what I suspected. Half had no idea what I was talking about. They tended to be younger folks. About half had heard about it's existence but had no idea what it was. The other half were pretty equally divided on whether it was a good thing or were very strongly opposed to it. Those that thought it was a good thing couldn't explain why they felt that way, but those that were opposed were very passionate in their opposition and able to discuss details about it.

I realize that my little informal survey was not a wide ranging controlled scientific poll but got me thinking and raised a few questions. It also opened new paths to verifying the real validity of the claims many have made.

Several posters here have stipulated that the majority of Americans want it. Others have provided statistics like Cdawg that such and such percent oppose shutting down government because of it. Freebie in usual form provides us with a gaggle of biased progressive liberal opinions in an attempt to indicate that everybody loves it and it will somehow magically save us all.

Well, how can any of those polls be accurate or true when it is apparent that at least half of the public at large don't have any idea what Obamacare is or how it might affect them? How can it be postulated that they support it when they don't have a clue about exchanges, it's requirements under the individual mandate, their role, when, where, and how it affects them, costs, exchanges, or anything at meaningful about it?

Among my sample group today only one person had any idea that exchanges opened yesterday. It was a lady who appeared to be in her mid 50's told me she had checked it online several times yesterday and couldn't get through. Notably when I asked many of the younger folks that expressed little or or no interest in the subject if they watched the news or read the paper they said they didn't read the paper or pay attention to the news much.

So the point is how can anyone postulate that the "majority" of Americans are for something, anything for that matter, when it appears that the real majority of people don't have a clue about it?

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 2, 2013 at 9:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"So the point is how can anyone postulate that the "majority" of Americans are for something, anything for that matter, when it appears that the real majority of people don't have a clue about it?"

Sadly, most Americans just believe anything King Obama and his groupies tell them. And if you are a liar and will do or say anything to get your way, how can one fight that, especially when the main stream media is also unreliable and biased in its reporting.

Posted by: mycentworth

October 2, 2013 at 9:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "poll shows voters are split on the health care law">>

Unless the poll asks if those opposing are opposed because they wanted something that went much further with single payer or a public option. When those are subtracted from the knee jerked government hating portion that want less pro-active government (they certainly don't belong with them), then there is *always,* without exception, a considerable majority on the side of wanting the ACA or something more liberal than it. In chart form: http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista...

Earlier you said:
P5: "A President is only as good as his latest poll shows..">>

Let's check. Right-wing Rasmussen Reports:
"The president's total job approval for September inched up a point from August to 48%, his highest rating since May." http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi...

See his chart here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/p...

You've got bupkis on the polling angle. Let us know when he's in the 30's. Bush lived in the low thirties and bottomed at 22%.

P5: "polls also show that Obama is losing Democratic suuport as well....">>

Let's see you try and support that one. I support him more that ever, and I'm not even a democrat.

P5: "As far as Obamacare, I really don't have an opinion either way,...">>

I'll take it.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 9:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: " I did a little experiment when I went out for...">>

This is just an aping of Jimmy Kimmel.

J: "Several posters here have stipulated that the majority of Americans want it.">>

Wrong. Any poll that does not differentiate between those that oppose it from your mindless rightwing government hating position, and those who oppose it because it doesn't go far enough, will have a majority opposed. This has always been the case.
Any poll that does differentiate between those two groups, which certainly do not belong together, will have a majority supporting it or wanting something to the left of it. This has always been the case.
Please make a note of it. Learn something new.

J: "how can... polls be accurate or true when... public at large don't have any idea...">>

Ignorance is systemic in America and you are a bright and shiny example of this. This is especially the case in red state central and it's aggravated by the robber barons spending half a billion dollars to specifically misinform the population on a specific topic. Note:
"...44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opi...

But we are not ruled by polls of the mob. We are a republic and have designated representatives. And in the many battles over this at the highest levels, you have consistently, completely, lost. You'll just have to get over it, because you are about to lose again.

As McCain put it: https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/h...

J: "they support it when they don't have a clue">>

And when they are clued in, then they support it. As FOX NEWS put it the other day;

"Republicans know what polls show — that most Americans don’t know what’s in ObamaCare, but when told what the law actually includes, a strong majority support the law." http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/0...

Reference for that claim: http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-fin...

You'll only be able to work to keep the population misinformed for so long.

J: "lady... told me she had checked it online several times yesterday and couldn't get through.">>

Yes, it's exceedingly popular with about 2.8 million trying to get access yesterday. Americans are dying for access to healthcare, about 20,000 of them each year, literally, and I don't think it's too much to ask that we actually let them it.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

How is 2.8 million out of 40 million "extremely popular"? In terms of progressive liberal logic and the activist rulebook, if you invite "everyone" to a party about some issue and a handful of progressive liberals activists show up it doesn't make the party popular. What you have is merely a gaggle of progressive liberal activists cheering one another on. You guys should think about getting out of your bubble. It is going to burst and you are going wind up outside it anyway.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 2, 2013 at 10:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "How is 2.8 million out of 40 million "extremely popular"?">>

That's so laughable on it's face, it's unworthy of response. This from the person who just tried to make the point about so many being unaware of the law. Try to be more genuine in your disingenuousness.

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/h...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

2.8 million of what freebie? Perhaps 2.8 million people who are paying attention because they are desperate for some kind of medical attention? Well old buddy there are many millions young healthy people critical to balancing the books that aren't paying attention and are either clueless about it or not interested at all. If they can't somehow be coerced into buying in to this Ponzi scheme that's just 2.8 million new anchors around the neck of the taxpayers.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 2, 2013 at 11:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "If they can't somehow be coerced into buying...">>

I don't think there is any doubt the 20,000 Americans who die each year represent a very small percentage of the millions of Americans who would like to avoid dying, by accessing a healthcare system, but cannot.

Simple graphic for a simple person. Cost without health insurance versus planned doctor visit:
http://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/webm...

D.
--------------
"I heard a peal of delight and turned around. Hilary Matfess, a young policy analyst, was jumping up and down, yelling out details.
“The mandate is constitutional! It was upheld! Roberts went for the swing vote! Yes! Oh my God! The individual mandate survives as a tax!”
Did you work on passing the bill? I asked.
“No!” said Matfess. “I just have lupus!”
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Nikki White had lupis too:

“If Nikki WHite had been a resident of any other rich country, she would be alive today.
Around the time she graduated from college, Monique A. "Nikki" White contracted systemic lupus erythematosis; that's a serious disease, but on that modern medicine knows how to manage. If this bright, feisty, dazzling young woman had lived in, say Japan--the world's second-richest nation--or Germany (third richest), or Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Sweden, etc., the health care systems there would have given her the standard treatment for lupus, and she could have lived a normal life span. But Nikki White was a citizen of the world's richest country, the United States of America. Once she was sick, she couldn't get health insurance. Like tens of millions of her fellow Americans, she had too much money to qualify for health care under welfare, but too little money to pay for the drugs and doctors she needed to stay alive. She spent the last months of her life frantically writing letters and filling out forms, pleading for help. When she died, Nikki White was thirty-two years old.
"Nikki didn't die from lupus," Dr. Amylyn Crawford told me. "Nikki died from complications of the failing American health care system. It was a lack of access to health care that killed Nikki White."
--The Healing of America: The global quest for better, cheaper, and fairer health care, pg. 1

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 12:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Here's a picture of Nikki White: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2...

Your insane politics actually have real world ramifications.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Let's see you try and support that one. I support him more that ever, and I'm not even a democrat."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164612/dem...

Feel free to spin this, as I know you will.....

"The president's total job approval for September inched up a point from August to 48%"

Wow, a whole point, you truly are desperate for a straw to grasp...

" Let us know when he's in the 30's. Bush lived in the low thirties and bottomed at 22%."

Not relative, Bush is no longer president.
But give it time, Obama will be in the 30's before it's over with.

Posted by: P5harri

October 2, 2013 at 12:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT quotes: "...44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opi...

I love it.

Posted by: Coralie

October 2, 2013 at 1:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, what do you think SS, unemployment, and medicare are if not a government program?

Posted by: mycentworth

October 2, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: [quote] "The president's total job approval for September inched up a point from August to 48%"
"Wow, a whole point, you truly are desperate for a straw to grasp...">>

It's quite easy to expose exactly who is grasping at their desperate straw. Your own Gallup link says Obama's average over his entire presidency is 49%. Right now he's at... wait for it... 48%, and rising.

Oh my. Someone get the smelling salts, I do believe I'm having an attack of the vapors.

That' you even have to reach for talking points this impotent and on their face silly just shows you've not only reached the bottom of your barrel, you've discovered it has a basement.

D.
------------
"SHUTDOWN UPDATE: Republicans want to reopen the National Parks, but if you get sick in one of those parks they want you to die." --Andy Borowitz

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 1:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"SHUTDOWN UPDATE: Republicans want to reopen the National Parks, but if you get sick in one of those parks they want you to die." --Andy Borowitz

I'm sure the people could handle getting sick in a National Park. Please, only a liberal would think the government has to help them in every instance.

Posted by: mycentworth

October 2, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth:
"It's a joke, son."
You didn't get it--read it again.

Posted by: Coralie

October 2, 2013 at 2:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Actually there were two jokes you didn't get.
1. The people who said to a pollster that they never used a government program.
2. Andy Borowitz. Hint: anything by him is satire, tongue in cheek.

Posted by: Coralie

October 2, 2013 at 2:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT
Nope, my poll just proved the point that he's losing Democratic support, which you challenged.

Try to focus.....

http://reason.com/poll/2013/09/20/maj...

Posted by: P5harri

October 2, 2013 at 2:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - I reread it and get the jest, but I still like my above answer about libs. It pretty much applies to liberals.

Posted by: mycentworth

October 2, 2013 at 3:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "my poll just proved the point that he's losing Democratic support, which you challenged.">>

You're ducking my response to your point, which I rebutted with your very own source: the fact that Obama is at 48% and rising, and his entire presidential average is 49%, means your point has no calories whatsoever. That's what desperate looks like.

That he has slightly declined over a year with his very own Demos only matters to me in direct proportion to the degree it will effect his ability to get re-elected. I suspect this is a slide with those very much on the left who are grumpy with his insistence upon appeasing the conservatives too much. Maybe some of them believe the lies regarding the scandals that evaporated. Regardless, it doesn't matter. If this is the best you've got, it's bupkis.

"The Affordable Care Act is moving forward. The funding is already in place. You can't shut it down."
https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/h...

D.
-------------
SATAN DISTANCES SELF FROM HOUSE REPUBLICANS
HELL (The Borowitz Report) - In a rare press conference today, Satan, the Prince of Darkness, aimed to put distance between himself and his longtime colleagues, the Republicans in the House of Representatives.
"I know that a lot of people think I'm somehow responsible for what happened today," the visibly agitated devil told reporters. "But this thing isn't evil, it's just moronic." --Andy Borowitz

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cor: "Andy Borowitz. Hint: anything by him is satire, tongue in cheek.">>

For satire to work it needs a basis of reference to work. The Andy quote:
"SHUTDOWN UPDATE: Republicans want to reopen the National Parks, but if you get sick in one of those parks they want you to die." --Andy Borowitz

The "want you to die" is turned up, if only a little, the reality is more like "they don't care if you die."

Case in point: "I'll be as callus and uncaring as you can imagine. I have no interest in paying for your health care. I hate to see you get cancer, but that's your problem, not mine." --Steve Lonegan, republican candidate, New Jersey
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.ne...

Andy refers to this complete, sociopathic, indifference to those that are now dying needlessly due to lack of access to healthcare.

D.
---------------
"This is only going to happen when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the economy hostage over ideological demands," Obama said. "It's all about rolling back the Affordable Care Act. This, more than anything else, seems to be what the Republican Party stands for these days."
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 4:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My delightful wife and I just got back from the local Blue Cross Blue Shield office. BCBS has several plans in the Arkansas individual insurance marketplace, and we like BCBS, so we're giving them a shot.

Our current monthly premiums for two individual policies add up to $597 (not including my $34 dental/vision add-on and the wife's $30 dental add-on). We can both enroll in one of the silver plans comparable to our current coverage for $236 per month-- less than I pay for my current policy (not including my $34 dental/vision supplement). We will save about 60% of our medical insurance costs. That will return the paydown for our mortgage refi (30-year converted to 15-year, slightly lower P&I payment) in less than six years. Thanks, Obamacare!

I should note that BCBS will allow me to apply for a removal of the 50% pre-existing condition surcharge I currently pay, which-- if granted-- would make my current individual policy (not including my $34 dental/vision supplement) slightly more advantageous than the comparable individual policy in the marketplace.

BCBS, a for-profit company, has firmly embraced Obamacare. The customer-service representative we met with is enthusiastic about the opportunity he has to help so many people. You'd think that a major for-profit insurer would run screaming from rampant socialism, but BCBS is embracing it. I guess they aren't very smart, eh, jeffieboy? How do they manage to stay in business?

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 2, 2013 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"You're ducking my response to your point, which I rebutted with your very own source: the fact that Obama is at 48% and rising, and his entire presidential average is 49%, means your point has no calories whatsoever. That's what desperate looks like.

That he has slightly declined over a year with his very own Demos only matters to me in direct proportion to the degree it will effect his ability to get re-elected. I suspect this is a slide with those very much on the left who are grumpy with his insistence upon appeasing the conservatives too much. Maybe some of them believe the lies regarding the scandals that evaporated. Regardless, it doesn't matter. If this is the best you've got, it's bupkis."

Doesnt matter......data stands on it owns.
No valid rebuttal, since you didn't stick with the main point.

Your man crush is losing credibility with his own party.

Posted by: P5harri

October 2, 2013 at 4:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"For satire to work it needs a basis of reference to work. The Andy quote:
"SHUTDOWN UPDATE: Republicans want to reopen the National Parks, but if you get sick in one of those parks they want you to die." --Andy Borowitz

The "want you to die" is turned up, if only a little, the reality is more like "they don't care if you die.""

This shows some sincere stupidity on your part

Posted by: P5harri

October 2, 2013 at 4:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Coralie, what do you think SS, unemployment, and medicare are if not a government program?"
Wow. You actually know something. If only the rest of the Teabaggers were as smart as you are.

RE "Your man crush is losing credibility with his own party."
That's not new. Obama lost some credibility with his own party during his first term, when he made so many concessions to congressional Republicans. Continuing Republican policies (Guantanamo, PATRIOT Act, surveillance) didn't help his party credibility, either. That's one reason the GOP was so confident in the 2012 presidential election. (They lost handily, by the way. Remember?) If anything, Obamacare helped Obama win the election; promising to dismantle Obamacare lost for the GOP.

Of course, nearly a half billion dollars has been spent to mislead the public about Obamacare, and it was bound to pull in some gullible Democrats along with the target audience of know-nothings.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 2, 2013 at 4:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "This shows some sincere stupidity on your part">>

Forgive me for not giving a flip about your mere opinion. When I say someone is showing stupidity, I take the time to demonstrate they are showing stupidity. Otherwise such a claim has no teeth.

You may find it emotionally uncomfortable to accept the fact that the conservatives here are taking actions that reveal they don't care if people die, but regardless of how the uncomfortable truth makes you "feel" or how discomforting you find this to be, it's the actual result of their actions. And that's what I am going by. They're actual actions. Not what they say, what they do.

Well, sometimes they actually slip up and burp out the truth:

"I'll be as callus and uncaring as you can imagine. I have no interest in paying for your health care. I hate to see you get cancer, but that's your problem, not mine." --Steve Lonegan, republican candidate, New Jersey
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.ne...

But they are usually smart enough to at least feign empathy or an ability to experience compassion. I did have a conservative admit the following on Facebook on Sept. 30:

"Bush was compassionate conservative, which isn't a real thing, kinda like gay marriage isn't a real thing."

Such breathtaking honesty. "Compassionate conservative" isn't a real thing. They're faking, just like I thought. Which is exactly what it looks like. Because their actions show *they don't care* that people are dying because they can't get health care.

I dare you, or anyone, to watch this video and then tell me you are proud of your country's disgraceful healthcare situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4kbag...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 7:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So, do you liberal knuckleheads agree that funding care for wounded veterans and the VA is not important? You guys are sick. It is much more important than your precious dysfunctional broken Obamacare.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 2, 2013 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "So, do you liberal knuckleheads agree that funding care for wounded veterans and the VA is not important?"
Of course we agree that veterans' care is important. We're happy to pay for that most important component of our socialized military. That is why we are so appalled that the Teabagger-driven Republicans didn't think about that before they shut down the government.

I see that the tremendous blowback-- which they were apparently too stupid to anticipate-- has goaded the fine Republicans to try to pass piecemeal bits of funding to try to correct their embarrassing and offensive actions, which were committed with malice aforethought, by the way. Years of deliberate malice.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 2, 2013 at 11:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Who cares about vets when Teabaggers are on a most important jihad to keep healthcare from 18 million Americans? Get your priorities straight people!
Nice to see the republicans are getting all the blame and absolutely roasted in the nations papers:

"America's Biggest Newspapers Slam The GOP Over Shutdown"
The Wall Street Journal:
"...sooner or later the GOP will have to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling that expires two weeks from now. Republicans will have made their point about fighting hard on principle while noting that to achieve more on ObamaCare they'll need more Senate Republicans after 2014 and a GOP President after 2016."

USA Today:
In this case, however, the "they're all bums" reaction is off-base. This shutdown, the first in 17 years, isn't the result of two parties acting equally irresponsibly. It is the product of an increasingly radicalized Republican Party, controlled by a disaffected base that demands legislative hostage-taking in an effort to get what it has not been able to attain by the usual means: winning elections.

New York Times:
By Tuesday morning, the leadership failure of Speaker John Boehner was complete. In encouraging the impossible quest of House Republicans to dismantle health care reform, he pushed the country into a government shutdown that will now begin to take a grievous economic toll.

Washington Post:
...citizens still expect a minimal level of competence and responsibility: Pay the bills and try not to embarrass us in front of the world.
By those minimal standards, this Congress is failing. More specifically, the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives are failing.

LA Times:
The GOP's clear objective is to dismantle the act, not to improve it — and the single-minded focus on that goal is what has led to the partial government shutdown that began Tuesday.

Chicago Sun-Times:
The federal government is partially shut down because an extreme faction of House Republicans is using its leverage to try to derail the Affordable Care Act,...

New York Daily News:
The elderly veterans who stormed the closed World War II Memorial in Washington on Tuesday showed more class, sense and spine than all of the Republicans who led Congress into shutting down the federal government.

New York Post:
Today the ObamaCare health exchanges go up. Meanwhile, the federal government appears to be shutting down. Once again, Washington’s got it completely backward.

Denver Post:
Incredibly, Republican hard-liners have triggered a shutdown in pursuit of a hopeless quest to delay or even defund the Affordable Care Act. This is a battle Republicans cannot win."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 11:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The world is watching this conservative belly flop, and they know who caused this disaster too:

BBC
"Anthony Zurcher wrote, “For most of the world, a government shutdown is very bad news – the result of revolution, invasion or disaster. Even in the middle of its ongoing civil war, the Syrian government has continued to pay its bills and workers’ wages. That leaders of one of the most powerful nations on earth willingly provoked a crisis that suspends public services and decreases economic growth is astonishing to many…" --BBC

Russia: The state-run media, naturally, had a field day. The Moscow Times, an independent paper: “The budgetary battle made headlines in Russian media on Monday. “The ‘Elephants’ Are Robbing the U.S. Government,” read a headline in the government-run Rossiiskaya Gazeta, referring to the symbol for the Republican Party. The state television broadcaster Vesti cautioned, “The U.S. government may be left penniless on Tuesday.”

Germany: The German press erupted in criticism for American politicians on Tuesday. Der Spiegel Online proclaimed, “A superpower has paralyzed itself,” while The Welt predicted “fatal consequences” that could damage the U.S. recovery. The Zeit newspaper blamed a “handful of radicals,” stating, “A small group of uncompromising Republican ideologues in the House of Representatives are principally responsive for this disaster. They are not only taking their own party to the brink, but the whole country. Unfortunately the leadership of this party has neither had the courage nor the backbone to put them in their place.”
http://thinkprogress.org/security/201...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 11:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Hamilton and Burr duel that was real politics.
Eventually the hard working tax paying conservatives will have to move to a red state and let the liberal free loading parasites feast on each other. Tea party doesn't care about veterans is laughable most of them are veterans.

Posted by: brightpath

October 3, 2013 at 11:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You say, brightpath, all the hard-working, tax-paying people including veterans are tea-party conservatives.

So--a recent Gallup poll found less than 1 in 4 now back the Tea Party.
Only about 1/5-1/4 of the country are hard-working, tax-paying people or vets?

As for moving to a red state, those are the states that receive more help from the feder al government than they pay in, while the blue states contribute more in taxes than they receive.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_bl...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...

Posted by: Coralie

October 3, 2013 at 2:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I must agree. Every bankrupt city and county to date has been a blue one with the most obscene example being Detroit which if liberals are not tossed in the election cycle might include the USA as a whole.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 3, 2013 at 6:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

According to the map in this article, not all municipal bankruptcies have been in blue states.
There appear to be some in Idaho and Alabama, besides bankruptcies of utility districts even in Arkansas and Oklahoma.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/mun...

Posted by: Coralie

October 3, 2013 at 6:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "Every bankrupt city and county to date has been a blue one...">>

But that's only true in the sense that we "haven't built an oil refinery in 50 years" (except for the 18 that we have built). Jeffieboy like to pass along the myths he's heard, but he doesn't correct them or acknowledge when they are proven false. It's this learning disorder that doesn't allow him to remember that this one was flattened before. Let's help him again:

***
'Bankrupt Cities, Municipalities List and Map"
UPDATED: July 18, 2013
Many local governments across the U.S. face steep budget deficits as they struggle to pay off debts accumulated over a number of years. As a last resort, some filed for bankruptcy....

Overall, though, bankrupt municipalities remain extremely rare. A Governing analysis estimated only one of every 1,668 eligible general-purpose local governments (0.06 percent) filed for bankruptcy protection over the past five years.

Excluding filings later dismissed, only one of every 2,710 eligible localities filed since 2008.

The majority of filings have not been submitted by bankrupt cities, but rather lesser-known utility authorities and other narrowly-defined special districts throughout the country. In Omaha, Neb., 10 sanitary districts have filed for bankruptcy, accounting for nearly a third of all Chapter 9 filings since 2010."
See map: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/mun...

D.
----------------
"My evidence is in my head and usually not derived from conjectures and misinformation spread around by others." --jeffieboy, April 23, 2013

Bonus: "California Legislature approves state budget with rare surplus"
SACRAMENTO -- The Democratic-controlled state Legislature on Friday overwhelmingly approved a moderate budget that saves some new revenues for a rainy day and pays down California's massive debt while still beefing up K-12 education spending by billions of dollars.
The $96.3 billion budget -- the third-biggest ever -- was mostly guided by Gov. Jerry Brown and includes new funding to help middle-class families afford college tuition, subsidize child care for working families and restore dental services to the poor. The budget also helps keep trial courts open, gives a hand to welfare recipients looking to jump to the middle class and provides more mental health services for those in need."
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_2346224...

How did they do that? By kicking the republicans of course.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 3, 2013 at 7:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So, do you liberal knuckleheads agree that funding care for wounded veterans and the VA is not important? You guys are sick. It is much more important than your precious dysfunctional broken Obamacare.

Posted by: jeffieboy

I am all for the Congress funding what it passes with legislation.

Fund the government, pass the budget and then let the Republicans submit legislation to remove wasteful or fraudulent spending, just like they have done 40+ time on the PPACA. If the legislation doesn't pass, then the legislation did not point out, with supporting evidence, programs that were wasteful or fraudulent, and the Republicans should move on to other things.

When they run out of things to change for the better, they should raise taxes to balance the budget, it would be the conservative, fiscally responsible thing to do.

Posted by: ecsmith2

October 4, 2013 at 8:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

So the point is how can anyone postulate that the "majority" of Americans are for something, anything for that matter, when it appears that the real majority of people don't have a clue about it?

Posted by: jeffieboy

Well, I agree with you that polls that are done by outside agencies are only done to influence popular opinion with opinion. That is what you do when you don't have a good reason to get people to believe something. Republicans are using the poll that Obamacare is unpopular, and claim that is a reason to shutdown the government, but they don't want to follow the poll that I just heard that 72% don't want the government shutdown for any reason.

Polls are not valid things to use in trying to explain why something should or should not be done. That should be done with facts, supporting evidence, and reasoning about those things.

On the other hand, there is a poll that is relevant, we just call the relevant one elections. The problem with these polls is that it is not done on individual issues, so it is sometimes hard to tell what the election is telling. In the last presidential election, health care reform was almost the single issue, so that Obama was reelected is possible evidence that a majority of Americans do like the law.

Posted by: ecsmith2

October 4, 2013 at 9:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good points "smith". The ultimate poll being elections if it is a trend the Liberals lost the House of Representatives in the last round of National elections. The tale will be told if that holds and Liberals lose the Senate in the next one. I am pretty confident they will but only time will tell.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 4, 2013 at 10:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ECS: "health care reform was almost the single issue,... Obama's [re-election shows] a majority of Americans do like the law.">>

The republican nightmare is the reality. The more people know about the law, the more they like it. Because they very much like the things that are in it. This whole shutdown fiasco has the unique side effect of drawing extensive media coverage to the law. We forget that a great portion of the populace doesn't follow this sporting event called politics at all (just like I am completely ignorant of sports, having no interest). Probably half the population doesn't know who John Boehner is.

This one chart explains it all: http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

See the percent with the favorable view of the element, then the percent that is aware it is in the law. As these people become educated and those lines come together, it will grow in popularity, Just as Orrin Hatch fears:

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/h...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 4, 2013 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The point freebie is that your sources support it because they are progressive liberals and socialists. None of the sources I use do and tell exactly the opposite story. Sources express opinions whether they are yours or mine and it is natural to gravitate towards results that validate your beliefs and to disregard those that don't.

I stand on the idea that the true test of what the American people want is revealed by elections. However, winning an election doesn't mean the winner will follow through on promises made. What they do mean is they were able to convince enough people of their intentions.

In Obama's case that is very true. The man did not have a well known past or record to run on. He ran on ideas. His message of "Hope and Change" inspired a lot of people. But people are like sheep and Obama was clever. He avoided using a lot of nouns to describe his hope and change. Rather he disparaged what everyone hated anyway....government....across the board. That resonated with many.

So we now hear people asking things like "What about that hope and change and how is it working out for you?". It appears as more and more people see the reality of what Obama's true intentions are they are abandoning him. We see protests against the government on a daily basis but we don't see any for it. That is telling because Obama is the government.

What we do see is rhetoric from both sides. The difference is one side is all rhetoric and the other is also expressed in public protest where people actually show up in large numbers. A few recent examples of that are the "Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment", "2 Million Bikers to DC", everyday citizens tearing down barricades to help aging veterans visit open air monuments closed by Obama, and the weekend of October 11 the "1 Million Truckers to DC" rally. We don't see the "99%" much any more and we don't see hoards of liberals in the streets doing anything but pontificating on mainstream broadcast news.

What that demonstrates is who seriously backs up their rhetoric and who has only rhetoric.

Therein lies the measure of performance of this Administration by regular people, not something that happened 6 years ago. Just because someone got elected 6 years ago doesn't mean people still support them. That's why we have new elections in Congress every two years and new Presidential elections every 4 years.

The results of biased polls from either "side" are not particularly valid because polls are so easy to manipulate. So going back to what "Smith" said, . validity comes after each new round of elections. One can argue and pontificate all day, but the measure of success of an administration is told by history after it is over.

Obama seems to be looking forward to being remembered like FDR or Lyndon Johnson, but I predict he is going to wind up looking a lot more like Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 4, 2013 at 12:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Slaves labored for the plantation owner and In the early 1900's men and women were slaves to the company store. There is another form of slavery (Plantation owner, company store) They are the progressive liberals.

Posted by: brightpath

October 4, 2013 at 12:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "your sources... are progressive... [blah, blah]...">

Genetic fallacy. I don't care about sources. I will never dismiss your claims because of their source. I dismiss them because upon investigation they are easily shown to be false.

When you said the US hadn't built an oil refinery in 50 years, your source was your ass. I looked to standard sources to show we had built 18 in that time. You don't acknowledge your error because you are a *coward.*

When you said Chicago has the highest murder rate in the nation, your source was your ass. I looked to standard sources to show it wasn't even in the top 40. You don't acknowledge your error because you are a *coward,* afraid of the truth.

When you say above, as you have before, "every bankrupt city and county to date has been a blue one..." your source is your ass. I provided standard sources to show it is not remotely the case. You don't acknowledge your error because you are a *coward,* and can't handle the truth.

When you gave a link claiming the Obama's had to give up their law licences, your source was someone else's ass. Standard references showed the claim was a blatant lie. You don't acknowledge your error because you are a *coward,* and cower in fear of the truth.

When you say above, as you have before, "every bankrupt city and county to date has been a blue one..." your source is your ass. I look to standard sources to show it is not remotely the case. You don't acknowledge your error because you are a *coward,* and don't care about the truth.

You have no credibility. It's been destroyed on this forum over and over and over again. I can bury you in examples. Because I keep copies.

J: "2 Million Bikers to DC",>>

Show me a picture with a thousand bikers in it and then you'll have 1/2000th of the evidence you need for your claim. You can't do that because you didn't have 1/1000th of 2 million bikers.

D.
--------------
"Half the Republicans You Know Are Insane"
Excerpt:
"...question... [do] respondents believe the Obama administration is coming to take their guns away, and 62% of Republicans answered "Yes." If you know five Republicans, that means three of them believe this, and a fourth has doubts. This, despite the fact that no gun legislation of any impact whatsoever has shadowed the president's desk...
When asked if they believe that Mr. Obama is secretly plotting to remain in office when his term expires, 44% of Republicans answered "Yes." If you know five Republicans, that means two of them believe this, and a third is halfway convinced. This, despite any supporting evidence whatsoever,...
Is the US government secretly staging "false flag" mass shootings all across the country in order to blame others and distract the country from their gun-grabbing, office-staying, Sharia-implementing ways? A full 26% of Republicans believe this..."
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/192...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 4, 2013 at 3:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeff: "we have new elections in Congress every two years...">>

In August this paper cited Womack predicting that this plan of taking the government hostage would be a disastrous strategy for the republicans:

"[Steve Womack] fended off the idea the GOP should force a government shutdown unless there was agreement to "defund" Obamacare.
Doing that, he said, would amount to "political suicide" for Republicans that could lead voters to return control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats." http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/au...

I don't agree with Womack on much, I suspect he's right this time.

J: "The results of biased polls from either "side">>

As evidence of my ability to know which pollsters know what they are talking about and which ones are talking out of their ass, like you, I made my bets on intrade based upon Nate silver. He got a perfect score and every single one of the 15 categories I bet on, each going going against republicans, won. Beat that wingnut.

D.
-------------
"Why did Republicans shut down the government? Because of their profound disgust for the idea of giving working families access to affordable health care. It's really that simple." http://on.msnbc.com/18oIER6

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 4, 2013 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "looking a lot more like Jimmy Carter.">>

Wingnuts like Jeffie are so used to lying about Jimmy Carter they don't even know how different reality is, nor do they care. This is easy to show.

When Carter's presidency is measured by the standard objective measurements by which we judge presidential success, he does quite well. Jeffie doesn't know this because he never checks his facts and only has slogans bouncing around in his mostly empty head.

The following Forbes analysis considers the objective data categories of inflation, unemployment rate, deficit reduction, real personal income, GDP growth and employment rank. Normal stuff. Among presidents since WWII, the Demo's have the top three slots, the republicans have the bottom three slots. Carter is squarely in the middle beating Nixon, Eisenhower and both papa Bush and baby Bush *handily.* Out of the last 11 presidents (before Obama), there only have two republicans that have a better record than Jimmy Carter.

Forbes: "Presidents and Prosperity"
http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_d...

D.
-------------
"Just 8% Now Say They Are Tea Party Members"
Views of the Tea Party movement are at their lowest point ever, with voters for the first time evenly divided when asked to match the views of the average Tea Party member against those of the average member of Congress. Only eight percent (8%) now say they are members of the Tea Party, down from a high of 24% in April 2010 just after passage of the national health care law.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 4, 2013 at 3:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I stand on the idea that the true test of what the American people want is revealed by elections. However, winning an election doesn't mean the winner will follow through on promises made. What they do mean is they were able to convince enough people of their intentions.

.....snip.....

The results of biased polls from either "side" are not particularly valid because polls are so easy to manipulate. So going back to what "Smith" said, . validity comes after each new round of elections. One can argue and pontificate all day, but the measure of success of an administration is told by history after it is over.

.....snip.....

Posted by: jeffieboy

You are right jeffieboy, they are elected with the consent of the governed, they are not required to govern according to the polls of their constituents.

But your analysis of the hope and change that Obama did not bring appears to be faulty. The failure of hope and change not appearing was simply the Republicans turning up the filibuster dial, and using anything they could, like Boehner not bringing bill to the house for votes because the whole House would pass them, but his tea party buddies wouldn't vote for them. He is currently doing it to not end the government shutdown.

Yes, history will tell the tale, but the history is only accurate when all the actions producing events are considered. You like to say Obama has failed, and that is partly true, but most of the failure of anything getting done for America is resting with Republicans.

If the PPACA is going to fail, and Republicans wanted no credit for it, then there should not have been one filibuster asked for during the whole process when it was legislated. That didn't happen, and the Republicans have to take there share of any blame.

Posted by: ecsmith2

October 4, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT "I don't care about sources."

That's certainly evident.

FFT "your source was your a$$. "

I don't see why your upset with Jeffieboy, based on the statement above you use the same sources he does.

Posted by: P5harri

October 4, 2013 at 5:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

[quote]: "FFT "I don't care about sources.">>

P5: "That's certainly evident.">>

Let me translate for someone who a has a black/white two dimensional graps of language: I don't discount something because of it's source. This is because something can be true, or false, regardless of it's source. This is known as the genetic fallacy, as you've been told countless times.
It doesn't follow that something is true, or false, because of it's source. Why is this so hard conservatives to grasp? Smearing a source is never a response to the claim. Learn something new.

P5: "you use the same sources he does.">>

Clearly not since the sources for my claims are independent of me, always provided and easily verifiable to anyone with access to a computer. You should try my method some time.

Jeffieboy's informational resource is his bottom, which on most occasion is also pretty close to where his head happens to be wedged. Try not to let this habit happen to you.

One of his heros, Rush Limbaugh, also uses a similar method of data mining:

"O’Reilly will say Air America hates America, but it’s especially irritating when the mainstream media writes about Limbaugh conservatives and Franken liberals as if there’s an equivalence. I do the opposite of what he does. We tell the truth on the show. Months ago Limbaugh talked about the minimum wage, and he said 75 percent of all Americans earning minimum wage are teenagers in their first job. My researcher called the Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that 60 percent of Americans earning minimum wage are the age of 20 and older. Limbaugh gets his labor statistics from the Bureau of Limbaugh’s Ass. He pulled that stat out of his ass. It went out his ass and into his mouth, then into the microphone, over the airwaves and into the brains of dittoheads, and they believed it.” --Al Franken, Feb 2000, Playboy, pg. 44

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 4, 2013 at 6:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh look! FFT isn't the only with them there Internets. Idiotic genetic fallacy crap.....

America's Three Worst Presidents

From the bottom:

Jimmy Carter: (1977-1981)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/0...

There is a reason why institutions of higher education have rules pertaining to viable sources.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 4, 2013 at 7:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "Three Worst Presidents">>

Excellent. Please provide the objective criteria selected before you then go on to make such a measurement. Learn to identify cherry picked stories and rhetoric which doesn't count as anything like objective criteria (i.e. worthless).
(hint, that's what your American Stinker article is).

Tnk: "institutions of higher education have rules pertaining to viable sources.">>

And it's a very good thing to use sources with a good reputation. I highly recommend that. This has nothing whatsoever to do with dismissing a source out of hand due to it's source which seems to be the one little lazy trick you know. Perhaps you should learn a trick.

Earlier Jeffieboy passed along an extraordinary claim that Mr. and Mrs. Obama had to give up their law degrees due to doing something shady. It was from a completely quacky source called "beforeitsnews." I didn't dismiss the claim (which I knew was obviously false), out of hand (genetic fallacy) due to it's entirely flaky source, I took 30 seconds and found two mainstream sources that complete unpacked the lie with careful reference. Because that's what adults do.

Sometimes good sources make mistakes and sometimes ludicrous sources (like the American Thinker bunch), accidentally get something right. That's why I wouldn't never dismiss a claim, or believe a claim, entirely based upon it's source. Ever. That doesn't follow, non sequitur, genetic fallacy. That's what lazy silly persons do. I say this realizing I have explained this to you a couple dozen times and it is something you will never grasp. Unfortunately.

D.
--------------
"Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) sharply criticized his fellow House Republicans on Monday, saying it's "moronic" for them to let the government shut down over their opposition to Obamacare and calling them "lemmings with suicide vests."
“They have to be more than just a lemming," he said. "Because jumping to your death is not enough."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/p...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 4, 2013 at 10:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I don't expect nor do I want progressive liberals to agree with me. If they did it would indicate that I might be similarly afflicted. The very thought of that is scary for anyone personally responsible and dedicated to the ideals of self determination, individual liberty, and personal freedom. However ineffective I do enjoy these therapy sessions, no matter how fruitless.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 5, 2013 at 9:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "I don't expect nor do I want progressive liberals to agree with me.">>

That's just an excuses for why no reasonable person would be persuaded by your attempts at, persuasion.
If you could muster good reason, evidence and arguments for your beliefs then people would accept them and agree with them. Try it and see. It's not remotely believable that this isn't what you want. Saying otherwise is just lying. You don't have reason, evidence and good arguments for you beliefs because they are for the most part, false. And worse, when your constant stream of factual errors are exposed, you lack the basic courage to accept correction and show you can bring your beliefs to be in accord with reality. This is dogmatism (another fallacy). Ironically, this exactly the blind devotion and lock step thinking you condemn when you talk about "drinking the Kool-aid." That's projection. How hypocritical.

J: " I do enjoy these therapy sessions,">>

I think some do adapt to the role of getting a thumping with the Truth Stick of No Mercy. Maybe you rarely get to talk to people at the bar that know what they are talking about. If they're talking to you, that would certainly will be their experience.

D.
------------------
"Stop Saying 'Drink the Kool-Aid'
Beyond being grossly overused and conjuring a horrendous massacre, it's not even technically accurate." http://www.theatlantic.com/health/arc...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 5, 2013 at 10:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A survey of 65 presidential historians and scholars in 2009 listed these as the worst presidents:
"James Buchanan at 42, Andrew Johnson at 41, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, George W. Bush, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Rutherford B. Hayes."
http://www.usnews.com/news/history/ar...

Posted by: Coralie

October 5, 2013 at 2:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Scholar rankings for Carter range between 18th and 34th (from the top).
Scholar rankings for Reagan range between 8th and 26th.
Clinton between 13th and 24th.
Eisenhower between 6th and 22nd (but most 10th or higher)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic...

"In addition to conducting a historian survey, C-Span also conducted a presidential leadership survey of 1145 viewers in December 1999."
This found Cater 22nd from the top.

Posted by: Coralie

October 5, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That should be Carter, not Cater.

Carter is ranked smack-dab in the middle.

Posted by: Coralie

October 7, 2013 at 2:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Only a year? It will take them longer than that to get their online signup system working. At the rate they are signing people up using the current system it is going to take a lot longer than a year just to get started.

Many states have signed up zero. The White house refuses to publish numbers though some sources friendly to the current administration optimistically estimate 51,000 have actually able to sign up nation wide. Funny part is that a lot of those 51,000 are not very happy about what they got now that they see it.

That is good for the Administration because the fewer they sign up the fewer learn what they are going to get and what it is going to cost them. The more that learn the truth of that, the worse Obamacare will fare.

Nancy said we had to pass it to see what's in it. That is bearing out. The only problem is that in spite of all the promises it is not doing what they said it would. No, you might not be able to keep your current insurance, it will not cost less and save any money, you can may not be able to keep your doctor, and the list of deceptions goes on and on.

Only a year? Gads, it will be a lot longer than that no matter what anyone does.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 14, 2013 at 12:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "No, you might not be able to keep your current insurance,">>

If it's junk, it's got to go. Standards are going up. It's called "progress" and we know Jeffie's are quite allergic to that sort of thing:

"Plans purchased through the Obamacare marketplaces will be significantly more robust than current individual policies, which often skimp on essential coverage to bring down their prices and have been dismissed by consumer advocates as “junk insurance.” Obamacare marketplace plans must cover 10 broad categories of “essential health benefits,” including for prescription drug coverage, mental health services, and maternity care."
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/...

J: "it will not cost less and save any money,">>

Tell that to Butch:
"Butch Matthews is a 61-year-old former small business owner from Little Rock, Arkansas who used to wake up every morning at 4 A.M. to deliver canned beverages to retailers before retiring in 2010. A lifelong Republican, he was heavily skeptical of the Affordable Care Act when it first passed. “I did not think that Obamacare was going to be a good plan, I did not think that it was going to help me at all,” he told ThinkProgress over the phone.
But after doing a little research, Matthews eventually realized how much the law could help him. And on Tuesday, his local Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) provider confirmed that he would be able to buy a far better plan than his current policy while saving at least $13,000 per year through Arkansas’ Obamacare marketplace."
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/...

Andy Borowitz reports his experience thus:

1) In New York, it took me less than 30 minutes to sign up online.
2) I am saving fifty percent over my previous rates.

I think he likes it.

J: "you can may not be able to keep your doctor,">>

That's doubtful, but maybe he was incompetent. We have good reason to believe should have adjusted your medications differently.

J: "and the list of deceptions goes on and on.">>

I know, but I'm tired of reading your post now and am going on to do something different.

D.
----------------
"Heads Up GOP: Rasmussen Has President Obama’s Approval Ratings Rising to 51%"
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/1...
Let's check in on Cruz and the band of wingnuts:

"Republicans..., the favorable/unfavorable rankings are dismal. For the tea party, it’s 21 percent/47 percent, the Republican Party is 24 percent/53 percent and Ted Cruz is 14 percent/28 percent."
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.co...

Ted Cruz, 14% favorability rating. Love it.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 14, 2013 at 1:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

He set his hair on fire to get into the news cycle and now he's gone.
tsk tsk
que lastima

Posted by: Coralie

October 14, 2013 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Stalling Obamacare for a year will simply save the money wasted on it until it's eventual repeal. Repeal of bad laws is nothing new. If any boondoggle deserves it, Obummercare does. It is just a matter of time so why not save some money while we wait?

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 14, 2013 at 7:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "Stalling Obamacare for a year will simply...">>

They cannot defund the ACA and in fact they've just given up. But let's review what these knuckleheads, devoted to keep healthcare from desperate Americans, have tried:

They tried killing the ACA by running candidates that would kill it, they lost. They've voted 42 times to try and kill it. They lost and wasted $72 million. They tried to kill it at the Supreme court. They lost. They ran their McCain on being against Obama's healthcare reforms. They lost. They ran Romney on the plan of killing it. They got spanked. They's gone around saying it's the worst thing since slavery and they've spend half a billion dollars spreading lies about it. Now in desperation they want to kill it by "delaying it a year." That is not going to happen. It's the law, it will not be defunded. However, their idiotic and useless shutdown the government stunt will cost us at least two thousand million dollars. Thanks "fiscally responsible" republicans!

Then J'boy goes on about saving money? One can't make this up. Since when have conservatives ever given a handful of warm wee wee about spending? No, it's all about punishing Americans for electing the black guy, with historic margins, twice.
The ACA saves money. Trillions in fact:
"On net, CBO and JCT estimate, repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period. ...repealing the rest of the act would increase direct spending and reduce revenues by a total of $1,280 billion." http://tinyurl.com/kkedyf5

D.
--------------
St. Reagan tripled it the debt, Bush doubled it again, and then Bush left $2.7 trillion of debt to land on the next guy, with a total of $10 trillion front loaded to land in the future.
"The $10 trillion hangover ... Paying the price for eight years of Bush" --Joseph E. Stiglitz http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/59553.html

If you don't like a big debt and deficits, don't vote for these "fiscal conservative" baldfaced liars. It's that simple:
"Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion. http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 14, 2013 at 8:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

John McCain: "We can't get much lower in the polls, we're down to blood relatives and paid staffers."

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/h...

Awesome.

Keep talking J'boy. It's working. It really is.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 14, 2013 at 8:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Stalling Obamacare for a year will simply save the money wasted on it until it's eventual repeal. Repeal of bad laws is nothing new. If any boondoggle deserves it, Obummercare does. It is just a matter of time so why not save some money while we wait?"

Posted by: jeffieboy

jeffieboy, you got your cost/benefit analysis that shows that the PPACA deserves to be repealed?

You are not just listening to health care reform deniers howling at the moon, are you?

Say for you mycentworth, do you have any actual information on why the PPACA should be repealed besides your unsupported opinions?

Posted by: ecsmith2

October 15, 2013 at 11:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

""The $10 trillion hangover ... Paying the price for eight years of Bush" --Joseph E. Stiglitz"
BTW, Stiglitz is another one of those Nobel Prize-winning economists.

Posted by: Coralie

October 15, 2013 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Nobel Prize committee is nuts. They awarded Obama a peace medal before he even got started and subsequently greatly expanded drone strikes including killing American citizens overseas. So what is so special about a Nobel Prize these days?

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 16, 2013 at 11:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "The Nobel Prize committee is...">>

...A private organization that can give their prizes to whomever they like. They have a prestigious reputation precisely because they do a very good job of it.

J: "They awarded Obama a peace medal...">>

Comparing the peace prize to the prize in economics just reveals your ignorance again. One is based upon objectively measurable (to some degree) academic achievement while the other, as was explicitly stated in Obama's case, to affect future behavior and outcomes.

Apples to oranges.

Since Obama never did manage to invade and occupy the wrong country for the wrong reasons, I guess the Peace Prize worked.

D.
----------
If anyone has forgotten just how stupid Bush's blunder was:

"The cost of that military adventure? Approximately 190,000 dead soldiers, contractors, and civilians, and a $2.2 trillion bill for American taxpayers, according to a recent report from Brown University."
The initial cost estimate by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in 2002: $60 billion. As we previously reported, that's the amount the United States ended up spending on reconstruction efforts alone, with $8 billion of it being wasted outright. The $2.2 trillion number cited by Brown includes the cost of caring for veterans, and could climb to $3.9 trillion by 2053 thanks to cumulative interest on borrowed funds.

As for the 190,000 dead: Roughly 134,000 of them were Iraqi civilians.

Obviously, those numbers are pretty staggering. And they raise an obvious question: Was it worth it? Not according to the researchers. Reuters sums up the findings:

The report concluded the United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women’s rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system, the report said. [Reuters]"
http://theweek.com/article/index/2414...

If you lay $4 trillion one dollar bills end to end, they stretch from the earth to the sun and back, twice, with hundreds of billions to spare. Light travels at 186,282 miles per second and takes over eight minutes to travel from the sun to the earth.

Conservative wingnuts like J'boy really ought to keep their heads down and their blowholes shut on any matters regarding "peace."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 16, 2013 at 6:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Joseph Stiglitz won his prize in 2001, some 12 years ago.

Some researchers place the number of Iraqi casualties much higher, up to a million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualti...

Posted by: Coralie

October 16, 2013 at 7:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )