User 85168
Banned
Any video archives of the conference?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US Federal Government Shutdown | Shutdown Shutdown, Debt Ceiling Raised
- Thread starter Jarmel
- Start date
- Status
Black Mamba
Member
If everyone not on medicare and medicaid losing insurance is okay to you, then I don't know what to say to that.
No one is "forced" into the exchanges. But they believe some 7-20 million will join over the next 3 years (with 7-10 this year if things go right IIRC).
That's a significant amount of people. As for the fine, you have to understand those that don't file income taxes are exempt from the fine.
maquiladora
Member
Has anyone looked closely at how the previous 17 government shutdowns were resolved? This isn't something totally new afterall....
Defaulting on debt is a whole other matter though. But I still believe that is something that won't be allowed to happen.
Defaulting on debt is a whole other matter though. But I still believe that is something that won't be allowed to happen.
The government has never been shutdown before over an objection to an existing law.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
*ugh* reading the idiotic comments on NBCNews is giving me a headache. These people would rather watch the country burn than let President Obama have one successful piece of legislation.
Although I do enjoy the emergence of the term "Tealiban"
Although I do enjoy the emergence of the term "Tealiban"
The other shutdowns were over minor points in the budget.
This is about the Tea Party being babies over a law that already in effect.
This is a completely new beast and a worse one at that.
Love that term!
soundahfekz
Member
which is no excuse, but this is what happens when you gerrymander shit to benefit the fringe districts. When its all said and done I hope there is a push to make gerrymandering more difficult or illegal.
SneakySneaks
Member
Everyone who has that much money will probably just short the dollar on the ForEx market. The Koch brothers would make a fucking killing (to be fair Soros made his money that way too).
lol at this point, the Tea Party doesn't care if the world burns, they just want Obama's head
PrivateWHudson
Member
Honestly, I didn't realize they had that much power. I thought they had won all of the crazyland seats that they were going to win. I still find it hard to believe they can't band together and shut up the Tea Party. This truly may be the end of the Republican party if they are that weak. Some quick googling makes it look like it's 171 - 61 in favor of non tea partiers.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
I still feel like a conspiracy theorist when I have to explain to people how gerrymandering works. I don't think many people at all recognize it as an actual issue at this point despite how widespread it's become. Mainstream media never talks about it.
Republicans can not compete with the money that the Tea Party Billionaires have. They buy districts/seats like you and I buy gum. TTheir only failure so far is failing to out spend this past election, but it was close enough to be a little worried that Business interests can totally disable the country like this.
Maybe it will be the end, if people are actually educated on whats happening. What do you think would be an effective way to inform everyone that this is 100% on the Tea Party?
EatinOlives
Member
Gerrymandering has been around for an extremely long time. If nothing else, its age will prevent both parties from doing anything serious about it.
Frankly the idea that there are idiot areas electing idiot representatives isn't catastrophic. It's logical, even. It's just never been a problem because they don't have the votes to have any significant impacts. The real issue here is that these idiot representatives basically managed to manipulate a coward Speaker of the House to listen to them and no one else. Their first order of business? Have a tantrum and shut everything down because they don't like a law that has passed. It's reckless, uninformed, and harmful to the economy and democratic process. In other words, it's a plan hatched by the Tea Party. It's the perfect storm and a loophole in government procedures that got us where we are right now. Thankfully Obama seems to recognize the impact that validating this tactic would have in American government and won't let it work.
The Tea Party was prepared to default last time this happened (so much so that they already had messaging as how it would make us "spend within our means") so I am under no illusion that they won't do it again.
It's up to the moderate Republicans in congress to prevent that from happening. Or Boehner, who theoretically should be out twisting arms right now. I don't have much confidence. I think this'll go down to the wire, and even then we will see some residual effects of the almost-default like we saw last time.
It's up to the moderate Republicans in congress to prevent that from happening. Or Boehner, who theoretically should be out twisting arms right now. I don't have much confidence. I think this'll go down to the wire, and even then we will see some residual effects of the almost-default like we saw last time.
I actually agree with PrivateWHudson that non-Tea Party Republicans are getting way too little blame apportioned to them. Sure, they're afraid of being primaried. And, in that case, they have the responsibility to tell the truth and make the argument that extremist Tea Party demands are hurting the country. They aren't excused just because their fear of pushback from the right is real. Yes, John Boehner is right to fear that his job is in jeopardy. That doesn't mean he's excused for allowing Republicans to slip into a war they can't win. He needs to deal with his failure and fall on his sword.
The elected members of the Republican Party have failed the country time and time again in the Obama Age, all because they're afraid of base voters? No. It's because they want the energy from conservatives and aren't willing to hold back on the damaging consequences of the anger and ignorance which fuels that energy. As a result, they are damaging the Republican brand once again and are leaving the entirety of the responsibility of governance to the Democrats, who can't be expected to permanently serve as the only adults in the room.
The elected members of the Republican Party have failed the country time and time again in the Obama Age, all because they're afraid of base voters? No. It's because they want the energy from conservatives and aren't willing to hold back on the damaging consequences of the anger and ignorance which fuels that energy. As a result, they are damaging the Republican brand once again and are leaving the entirety of the responsibility of governance to the Democrats, who can't be expected to permanently serve as the only adults in the room.
soundahfekz
Member
I'm so glad he's had the balls thus far to not engage in negotiation. It would enable to GOP to run the country via proxy regardless of who is in office.
same. So sad, but im with you.
CrazyIvan1978
Member
I have heard and read some people say that default will not be allowed to happen. What exactly will be done (beyond the very thin use of the 14th Amendment, how can you even put that one sentence into practice anyway?)?
Epsilon-delta
Banned
If the US defaults, I'll short the dollar myself on Forex.
hmm... is this anything us poor folk who scrounged up a couple of dollars can do? Or should I stick to my dual shotgun & harley plan, for the quickening...?
The 14th Amendment option lives on. I can't think of anything else he'd be speaking to. And he seems to think minting a coin would be dumb as he basically insulted the notion, but has been much more cautious in talking frankly about the 14th.Barack Obama said:
I know it is a ballsy move, but I really want to see him use it. Put the Tea Party in their place.
They'll probably get replaced by someone from the TP if they're seen as too reasonable. The threat of being replaced is real.
SneakySneaks
Member
I hear the British Pounds are still doing well, you don't have be a millionaire to invest in the ForEx (still the market is volatile as hell and you can easily lose everything when a power broker decides to sink a currency). Personally I'd just invest in gold or silver, but I don't think they'd actually let the ceiling collapse.
The Boner press talk got me wondering. When the hell did "let's have a conversation" become the standard code words for "let me present my crazy plan/beliefs and pretend it's perfectly reasonable." I see this verbiage constantly being used on the news networks, especially those ridiculous round-table talking head shows.
BTW looking at the poll numbers, this is not hurting the Republicans nearly as much as the talk in this thread would have one believe. So expect more of this in the future!
BTW looking at the poll numbers, this is not hurting the Republicans nearly as much as the talk in this thread would have one believe. So expect more of this in the future!
maquiladora
Member
I think it won't happen because even if the Tea Party members don't care about the fallout, the rest of the GOP won't be willing to commit political suicide and, probably close to the 11th hour, will climb down.
NullPointer
Member
(click for details)
Around the same time the Republicans "compromised" by only seeking to defund Obamacare instead of repealing it entirely.
I wish I was joking, but that does seem to be the line.
ZedIndyLil
Member
Conservative Harvard economist muddying the waters on the debt ceiling:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/top-conservative-economist-default-is-a-non-issue
So I see a best-case scenario being an ultrashort debt ceiling raise, so we get to do this again in x months.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/top-conservative-economist-default-is-a-non-issue
So I see a best-case scenario being an ultrashort debt ceiling raise, so we get to do this again in x months.
PrivateWHudson
Member
Yep, I'm fine with everyone losing insurance. That will either bring on single payer, or bring back reasonable rates at doctors offices. A reset would be a-okay in my book.
Okay, so maybe "forced" isn't the correct term, but I think the semantics is detracting from the conversation as to what I'm trying to figure out.
If we have four categories of uninsured, what is the projected breakdown:
People who jump into the exchanges because they just want insurance - A
People who qualify for Medicare in 2014 who didn't in 2013 - B
People who don't care about the fine/won't get fined - C
People who enter the exchanges to avoid fine- D
A one year exception to the fine would only effect D. My completely wild guess from earlier was.
People who jump into the exchanges on there own - 50%
People who qualify for Medicare in 2014 who didn't in 2013 - 25%
People who don't care about the fine/won't get fined - 15%
People who enter the exchanges to avoid fine- 10%
You said my numbers weren't even close, so what are the numbers?
EatinOlives
Member
Indeed, and it's not limited to the GOP, it will let any small groups of politicians from any party do the same.
Now I'm not sure about the following and I hope someone with better knowledge than me can confirm or deny the validity of this, but in my view a loophole like this will be fixed by granting a president the power to submit an individual clean CR for vote to either the House or Senate, or one would be put up to vote by default. It would mean that in the case that we have either a Majority Leader or Speaker who actively refuses to continue with the procedures put in place, one will be submitted regardless and would have every opportunity to be shut down due to a lack of votes anyway.
The main issue is that Boehner is not submitting a clean CR simply because he knows it will pass. But a continuing resolution should be passed independently of whatever political slapfight may be going on at the time. At the very least there should be a clean option free of politics put up for vote, and if that passes then tough fucking shit for those who didn't like it.
SteveWinwood
Member
I was furthering the story where idiots gave idiots power and then lost complete control of them because they were dumber than anyone expected.
(click for details)
Around the same time the Republicans "compromised" by only seeking to defund Obamacare instead of repealing it entirely.
I wish I was joking, but that does seem to be the line.
October 16th is going to be an amazing day.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Just look at what their current future looks like. Even if they win 2014 Obama will still have the veto. Even if they win 2016, the senate is still going to be majority Democrat given what seats are up for election from 2010. And those are both big ifs.
Then 2018 roles around, we'd have 6 more years of minority and age demographic changes since 2012, 5 more years of getting accustomed to Obamacare, and 8 years of republican gerrymandering aging out of effectiveness.
They're panicking. They're trying to find ways out with things like voter suppression and campaign finance deregulation, but that can only take them so far, if they can even get that implemented to the extent they want. They really have no chance to have any power as they exist right now unless they find a way to hold power as a minority.
That's really the crux of this entire issue as I see it. Or they're just incompetent by going into this shutdown in the first place and worried about salvaging the short term harm they will do with their base to get nothing. I don't know anymore.
I agree for the most part with what you said. The Democracy Corps study on the GOP alluded to this: they see Obamacare as the tipping point at which "their" country becomes lost to them forever.
http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/954/dcor rpp fg memo 100313 final.pdf
The demographics don't look good for the GOP at all. At the same time, that's why we can expect even more desperate tactics in the years to come.
Black Mamba
Member
No, it would affect A. Why would people buy insurance if you can buy it at any time after you get sick. Why buy it before you get cancer!? Why are NY's insurance premiums in the individual market sky high compared to neighboring Mass!? Answer: The lack of the mandate.
What you seem to not understand is that the insurance companies' actuaries determine the pricing of plans BASED on the fact that the mandate exists. If you delay the mandate, all the prices have to change or all the insurance companies will go out of business.
Now, I wish we had a gov't run system (expanding medicare to everyone for example) and stuff, but an overnight issue like that would kill our economy. You can't just level the industry overnight like that without severe consequences. Furthermore, if you gave them an out, then Obamacare fails because the actuaries will recalculate all the premiums and they will go up drastically.
You're looking at this too short-sighted. There's a major effect that happens. Delaying the mandate changes the calculations in the most dramatic fashion possible.
We're going to find out. We can talk on March 31st.
PrivateWHudson
Member
Fair enough. I think anyone who would wait until they get cancer to get insurance already fall into C or D and have been accounted for. I also think D is a very small percentage of the population. The fine, although a motivator isn't significant enough in the first year to shut down the government and risk defaulting.
empty vessel
Member
It's not really muddying the water. It's the truth, provided Treasury can prioritize. My preference should this scenario come to pass, by far, would be to default on payments to bondholders. Fuck 'em.
lol is there a link where I can watch this?
It was from last night, it should be on his website.
Black Mamba
Member
The insurance actuaries disagree. The fine is significant if you earn decent amount of money even in the first year.
Also, those people aren't C or D as there is an open enrollment period. You miss it, you're screwed if something happens.
Isn't the fine something like $90 for the first year?
Edit:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/22/consumers-guide-health-reform.aspx
There's a ton of great info on this site and I recommend people check it out.
PrivateWHudson
Member
How would that change if they waived the fine for the first year? People who opt out and hope to enroll next year still run the risk of getting sick/screwed mid year.
Black Mamba
Member
$95 or 1% of you income (capped at the national average of a bronze plan)
You said: "I think anyone who would wait until they get cancer to get insurance already fall into C or D and have been accounted for."
I'm saying those people would come from A, not from C, because the people in C or D are fucked if they miss open enrollment and so they already made that decision. The insurance industry agrees.
You are underestimating how many people would go from A to C without the mandate. The industry has calculated this. it's how the premiums are determined!
- Status