Shut Down News

That is incorrect. In fact, covering pre-existing conditions is a major component of the Bill. Of course, who is complaining most about this? The insurance companies and their highly paid lobbyists pushing the opponents of the Bill.

While I do agree this will cost the insurance companies who in turn will pass that along to all of us who have insurance, the fact is, us taxpayers are covering those people anyway - only to a greater extent because of what I said earlier - uninsured people are not seeking medical attention until their conditions worsen and care cost more.

So we pay more in taxes or we more in premiums. What's the difference if I have to pay $100 to this person or a $100 to that person? I am still out $100. The difference is, over time the currently uninsured will get preventative and early care and treatment when it is cheaper. And that "should" allow medical costs (and/or taxes) for everyone to come down (or at least stop going up so fast). Yeah, I know that's a "big if" sort of thing, but as Jeb Bush (Republican governor of Florida) said yesterday, the Tea Party nor the Republican who oppose the Bill have not come up with any alternative plan. So they need to run with this because doing nothing has not done anything to keep medical costs down, or to slow the out-of-control increases.

At least with something place, it can be tweaked and adjusted as needed. What major plan is perfect right out the gate? We should stop expecting this one should be.

It is important to note the pre-existing conditions issue doesn't hurt just the currently uninsured. It also hurts folks (or their family member) who lose their job (for whatever reason - including getting laid-off or companies failing) and then lose the coverage they got through their jobs. Then when they find a new job, the (or some) new insurance plans would not cover those pre-existing conditions. The Bill stops that lousy practice too.

 

The House sent bills funding these things to the Senate, they would not pass it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSN92TsJK28 Fast forward to around 1 min.

 

Just Playing, maybe you should think more about why a government would list such as 'non essential'. The gubment decides what is what. I still question an entity that has by it's own terminology, around 800,000 non essential employees, and around $17 trillion in debt...

Perhaps we need to review what the gubment spends? And what needs to be a priority? The Congress was paid during this time, perhaps we could start there?

 

I am just confused here. The Tea Party should not be allowed to exist? And again, we are not a democracy.

I am down with you as far as sending them packing! Let's clean house, and get things going.

Is this not why we have 3 levels of gubment? The House is in charge of the purse for a reason. Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches have their place. There is a reason we have them.

I do agree as to the Congresscritters, seems they run on one thing, then get paid a bunch to do another thing.

Keep in mind, the founders recently fought a battle, and beat the world's super power at the time. You think they would not be cut throat at the house or senate level? Were they civil?

Let's look at Wiki.

Remember, executive, legislative and executive branches.

 

Skip the Wiki, and try Oxford:

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Liberty-History-Republic-1789-1815/dp/0199832463


This country is a democratic republic. And though the "Tea Party" can exist in a free country, they do not have the right to subvert the democratic process. This includes lobbying, gerrymandering, and using "the purse" as a weapon instead of the tool it was designed to be. Holding the government hostage to suit your corporate puppeteers "Libertarian" agenda is weaponization.

 

Let's not forget Wikipedia for second because whether intentional or not, I think including those examples obfuscates the facts. From that wikipedia article Congress,

• eliminated all military funding for the government of South Vietnam and thereby ended the Vietnam War
  
• limitations on military funding placed on Ronald Reagan by Congress, which led to the withdrawal of United States Marines from Lebanon.
  
• Congress denied further aid to the Contras in Nicaragua.
  
• On March 23, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a supplemental war budget that imposed a timeline on the presence of American combat troops in Iraq, but the legislation was not passed.
  
• where Congress passed a law to withhold 10% of federal funds for highways in any state that did not raise the age to 21.

These are NOT examples or precedence that applies to what happened here. In each of those cases above where Congress opposed what the Executive branch was doing, they (Congress) did not shutdown the government like they did here! :mad They did hurt the economy to the tune of $24+ Billion, threaten the Full Faith and Credit of the US across the globe, or hurt 100s of 1000s of their own constituents who were furloughed, or the 1000s more who lost income due to those who were furloughed.

And for those who think getting back pay is the same thing - it is not! At least not for junior military and low-level employees who live payday to payday.

As for the definition of non-essential, being in the military for 24 years, there would be times when "non-essential" personnel were told to stay home - typically for safety reasons like 24" of snow over night, or hurricanes, or the like. So I have a pretty good idea what that includes and I think I can illustrate that here.

Non-essential would be, in large part for example, those employees in support positions who's offices closed at the end of the workday and who go home weekends and holidays. That does not mean those they support stop working. In fact it often meant on Monday morning, there was an extra large stack of work to be done.

I fixed air traffic control radios my first 10 years in the Air Force. Certainly, the control tower never closed, so the controllers were essential, working 24/7/365 through weekends and holidays. But their office admin people went home at COB (close of business) each day, weekends and holidays. And my radio troops went home - BUT, I had radio troops "on-call" 24/7/365 in case a frequency went down, just as the Radar maintenance shop had on-call people who were not "non-essential". The base hospital of course remained opened, but routine X-rays, lab work, and follow-up patient visits were all put on hold.

Non-essential does NOT mean not needed. In fact, having worked for both Federal and State governments for 35+ years (as employee and contractor), I can tell you virtually EVERY office ALWAYS had unfilled personnel slots because they were unfunded due to budget constraints. Of course, there are exceptions, but they were few.

 

Gerrymandering has been used in Louisiana by the democrats for a long time. Is 'subverting the democratic process' only when you don't agree with it? Hold on now, who was holding the gubemnt 'hostage'? Corporate puppateers?

You have an interesting outlook on life. I mean that in a nice and honest way. :major

 

Under the Constitution, the debt has to be paid first. So that really would not have happened. They take in enough in taxes to pay the interest.

Just me personally, raising the debt ceiling every time we approach it would damage someone's credit as well. I would not loan someone money who constantly maxed out credit cards. Would you? Doing that shows a lack of leadership, might even be unpatriotic. :-D

And sorry, I believe my gubment. If they tell me someone is non essential, I believe them. All joking aside, I know they everyone of them is not a useful employee. But, I bet you a lot of them are. And if they work for the gubment, and live paycheck to paycheck, perhaps maybe save a little bit, so when the occasional shutdown occurs, they can buy food? Everyone should have an emergency fund. I admit, it is not easy to do, but just a few dollars a week adds up over time.

 

Benjamin Franklin and Francis Bellamy might disagree with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7cY7LfMSbk

I am finding all kinds of info on this, do you have any good links to where we are a democratic republic vs republic? Can you find democracy in the Constitution or Declaration of Independance?

My GPS is lost now, are we OT? :-D

Interesting, I was taught this as the Pledge of Allegiance. "'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 

The definition of a democratic republic is a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens.

Sure sounds like what the United States is designed to be...

:major


"Is 'subverting the democratic process' only when you don't agree with it?"

No. I am neither a registered Republican, or Democrat. I am an independent who votes for the best candidate (least offensive bowl of :crap) regardless of party affiliation. I have studied this country's history quite thoroughly, and can tell you that no man who signed the Declaration of Independence would tolerate corporations being involved in civic life. This means NO lobbying, NO contributing to political campaigns, and ABSOLTUTELY NO influencing of elections.

 

You might be surprised to know I am independent as well. I am not sure I agree with your definitinion of democratic republic vs republic, but will have to educate myself more on that.

My elementary thoughts are we are governed by the Constitution, and vote on some minor things. We have the 1A, 2A, 4A, all kinds of rights. These cannot be taken away by a popular vote. Thus in my primitive thinking, a Republic. In other words, the democratic vote cannot override the Constitution. Where as a democracy can become mob rule.

Please bear with me on this. It could be a very interesting topic.

"

I think I would have to agree with you there. Way too much money involved in my personal opinion.

 

I can also say, they had no tolerance for giving money away either. :cool

 

I got to say, the man had a way with words.

 

Despite what most people learn in school, the Boston Tea Party was in reality an anti-corporate revolt. The Oligarchy created by the melding of the English Crown and the Dutch East India Company created a monopoly on trade. This monopoly was strangling colonial small business and hundreds participated in the, shall we say, "festivities". :-D

The "Founding Fathers" learned well from their experience with the malefactors "across the pond", and barred corporations from doing anything except conduct business.

I think one of the most interesting facts of social life and structure in the early years of the United States was how many of the former aristocracy found the new "middling class" referring to themselves as "Mr. and Mrs." quite abhorrent. Before the American Revolution, there really was no such thing as a "middle class". Such titles were reserved for the aristocrat class. Incidentally, the majority of those who found it abhorrent were Federalists. By 1815 the Federalist Party was doomed, so one can say it was probably not the best attitude to take in the new republic.

American society under the Democratic-Republican Party was quite egalitarian to say the least.

 

The past speaks, the wise listen.

As much as I like your post, corporations are not all monopolies, so a bit off. Real free trade does not involve monopolies. Good reason for a revolt back in the day?

 

The US is a republic and a democracy, it matters little what words you use to define it EXACTLY other than personal preference.

The UK is a monarchy but we are not ruled by a monarch, we are also a republic with a democratic process, the queen is just there for show.

The USSR was a pure republic which historically basically just meant without a monarch same as the US but the two forms of governance and the societies they produced couldn't be more different.

Apples and oranges...

 

Don't meld too much, or muddle the whole corporate/monopoly issue. The most destructive way for a corporation to exist is being married to, or meddling in the affairs of governing. It was learned from hard experience that Corporate, and Government power are direct adversaries. They don't play well together, and whichever has the larger allocation of resources becomes the dominant member of the marriage of the two. Thus one rules the other. Usually Government is on the losing end, and so are the people it should represent.

Truth be told, Washington Irving did not write a book of history. Christopher Columbus did NOT sail the Atlantic because the world was flat. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow did not write a book of history either. Israel Bissell rode 350 miles and warned the colonies, not Paul Revere. Everyone has heard of Edison, but how many learned about Tesla? The biggest part of the problems "We" face in today's society is the "history" most people believe is a work of fiction, and total B*******.

 

I think this is one of the best statements I have read.

If I may add one thing, would it not be destructive for the government to meddle in the free market?

 

But good Sir, what is it? Is it a democratic republic, democracy, or a Republic?

And in 200 words or less, please respond. :-D:-D Just feeling goofy, respond however you wish.

 

Yes, and no.

For this query, I'll defer to Theodore Roosevelt. I'm not so sure I could have put this so well, but I'd like to hope I'd come close:


"The key to Mr. Wilson's position is found in the statement I have just quoted, when he says that 'The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it.'

This is a bit of outworn academic doctrine which was kept in the schoolroom and the professorial study for a generation after it had been abandoned by all who had experience of actual life. It is simply the laissez-faire doctrine of the English political economists three-quarters of a century ago. It can be applied with profit, if anywhere at all, only in a primitive community under primitive conditions, in a community such as the United States at the end of the eighteenth century, a community before the days of Fulton, Morse and Edison. To apply it now in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century, with its highly organized industries, with its railways, telegraphs, and telephones, means literally and absolutely to refuse to make a single effort to better any one of our social or industrial conditions.

Moreover, Mr. Wilson is absolutely in error in his statement, from the historical standpoint.

So long as governmental power existed exclusively for the king and not at all for the people, then the history of liberty was a history of the limitation of governmental power. But now the governmental power rests in the people, and the kings who enjoy privilege are the kings of the financial and industrial world; and what they clamor for is the limitation of governmental power, and what the people sorely need is the extension of governmental power."

~ Limitation of Governmental Power, Address at the Coliseum, San Francisco, Sept. 14, 1912

 

Not sure but it's broke:-D As are we...

 

So, do we continue to raise the debt ceiling (or goal as I call it) or do we address the fact that the gubment spends way more than it takes in, and, we got to start cutting spending somewhere, or tax the hell out of someone.

And I admit, the republicans have spent their share of money. Not as bad as bo, but we got a lot of bad spending over many years, with no accountability.

I think for progress to be made, gubment needs to realize it has a spending problem. Like an addict, admitting you have a problem is the first step.

 

Continue to raise it.

 

That is why I say we call it a debt goal. We reach it, have a shot, and wait until we reach it again!

:confused

 

Agreed, raising and reaching it seems to be working.

 

Well, the growth of GDP is an illusion fostered by the relentless creation of fiat currency. Debauching an enemy's currency is one of the oldest tactics in war.

I think these charts speak for themselves.

The correlation between capital gains and socioeconomic disparity is incontrovertible. The parallels between the "Great Depression" and the "Great Recession" are pretty obvious. Mellonomics, and it's bastard stepchild Reaganomics are both glorious trainwrecks.

Most of us are geeks 'cause we're pretty smart, so what would be the conclusions you would draw from this data?

 

Fred I was just yanking your crank:-D Playing Devils advocate.

I've got some signs to print:-D I'll leave you guys to it.

 

Ridiculous comments like this is why I really don't like these discussions - people flapping their lips refusing to do their homework before posting, or just don't care about being truthful. This is BS, just like the claim earlier that said the White House "orchestrated and planned" the shutdown at least 6-8 months ago and that there was "a paper trail a mile long leading directly to the White House" to prove it. All BS!!!

Obama spending vs Bush spending

Bush Spending vs Obama Spending,

Obama’s Budget: Spending Too High, But Bush Was Worse

Forbes - Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

So come on, Fred. Seriously, how about being truthful and stop the BS?

****

As for raising the debt ceiling - of course we raise it. Just because you have a credit card with a $10,000 limit does not mean you automatically max it out. It means if your child breaks his leg, you get it fixed without having to declare bankruptcy. Not raising the limit and failing to fund the government signals to the rest of the world our credit is worthless and they cannot have faith we well pay our bill.

Much of the problem lies on common taxpayers. We complain our children are falling behind in education, but we vote down raising taxes to pay for better schools and teachers, failing to "invest" in our future.

We complain about gangs and lawlessness in our streets but vote down raising taxes to fund law enforcement and new prisons, and prisoner training/education.

We refuse to close loop-holes allowing the rich to pay taxes at a MUCH lower rate than the middle-class and poor - even after folks like Warren Buffet say his low rates are unfair.

We resist government spending for regulations only to let big banks and insurance companies govern themselves so they can run amok with our money - then watch them hold their hands out, expecting and getting saved (again) by the taxpayers.

We complain there is too much fraud, waste and abuse, but again refuse to pass and fund regulations and oversight measures to control it.

Then there are those who want it 100% their way, or no way - but what does that accomplish? It brings everything to a screeching halt, shuts down governments, destroys faith and credit, and makes the US the laughing stock of the world.

The fact of the matter is, if we want to pay down our bills and have more money for our future (and less of a burden for our children and their futures), we have to put more of our income into those bills and minimize fraud, waste and abuse while still meeting our day-to-day obligations.

Doing nothing (blocking everything) accomplishes nothing. And nothing will get accomplished without compromise.

We need to increase spending on law enforcement to reduce the costs of crime.

We need to increase spending on education to reduce failing grades and to invest in our future.

We need to increase taxes (or at least have everyone pay their fair share) to pay down our bills and debt.

 

OK, so what if another child breaks a leg? And then another. Do you just keep on piling up debt, or take care of your bidness? It is a debt ceiling, as in an end, a limit... Constant raising of it is flawed leadership, under any gubment.

This site has an option to go back in time. Check out 2008 vs today. I am thinking 9 is less than 17. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

Care to be specific, or is this just typical rhetoric? Or, perhaps an insult? Please tell me specifically where I have lied.

 

After reading this a couple of times, it seems you have no desire to have a conversation with someone with a different view. Your choice, your right, rock on. :-D

 

In reality, centuries of history dictate that anarchy does not work because people cannot be trusted to be altruistic. If such were true, we wouldn't need regulations, laws, or a court system. As it stands, and has stood for millenia, we do.

The relationship between the employed and a "job creator" should be symbiotic. As it stands a lack of regulation and oversight has allowed it to become incredibly lopsided, radically destabilized, and unable to drive GDP properly. Note photo number one in my previous post. Ten percent of the population cannot, and will not drive GDP "omnia per ipsum". Income disparity is headed to an all time high in this country, corporations are turning record profits, their tax burden is near a record low, and our infrastructure is a disaster of "painted rust".

Infrastructure is not free, and neither is freedom.

"Reaganomics" is the biggest puff of smoke sold to the American populace since the Gulf of Tonkin. You cannot simply slash revenues, print vast sums of fiat currency, let your financial sector run wild in the streets, and expect to have a stable society.

Things just don't work that way, even if they seem to for a while. It's simply not sustainable when infrastructure and freedom ain't free.

 

No, we're the ones being insulted. My reply was in response to another of your "false" claims - this time that republican spending is not as bad as Obama's. And I said that I don't like discussions with "people flapping their lips refusing to do their homework before posting, or just don't care about being truthful."

Specifics? Okay.

• Bush came in with a nice surplus and left with a huge deficit. I posted links to 4 sources.
  
  
• You said the bill was not voted on, it was. I posted links to both the House and Senate roll calls showing how each representative and senator, by name and state, "voted".
  
  
• You used an article to "imply" the bill would raise rates for 99% of "all" males. It doesn't, not by a long shot. Your own article notes that figure is based on some part-timers and those covered through current "public exchanges". Not all males. But you tried to obfuscate the issue by misrepresenting those numbers. Not cool, or truthful.
  
  
• And you said the ACA does not cover pre-existing conditions. It does. In fact, that is one of the cornerstones of the bill.

So were you lying? Or just didn't bother, or care to learn, or post the truth?

I don't care if you have a different opinion or view. And I didn't spend 24 years in the military defending your Right to express them only to deny you that Right now. I am just saying stop trying to rationalize your views with falsehoods. Do your homework! Verify your facts before posting falsehoods.

Now in your case specifically, I don't believe you intentionally lied to deceive us - but you have discredited yourself by repeatedly posting untruths as fact! That's your reputation now. And IMO, it is insulting and disrespectful to the rest of us and this debate (democratic?) process by not doing your homework first to verify your facts before posting.

It is clear you don't know what a debt ceiling/limit is. Again, do your homework!

Raising the debt ceiling simply means you can borrow more money - it raises your credit limit. It does not mean you suddenly owe more money. It is responsible financial management to have a limit higher than you need. It is irresponsible to max out your limit, being unable to pay your bills, and going into default.

Now I think this discussion has played out. Or at least I don't want to hear anymore unsubstantiated falsehoods presented as fact. So, I am done here.

 

You know, I didn't used to believe in term limits - thinking the voters are smart enough, and level-headed enough to vote out the scumbags. And even though Ted Cruise and many of the other "scumbags" who voted to force the shutdown are newbies, I sure don't want them gaining so much seniority they chair the more critical committees. So term limits works and is good for the presidency, I am beginning to think it would be for the legislative branch too.

 

Don't recall saying the bocare did not accept pre existing conditions. Actually said I would wait until I needed it, then get healthcare.

"And I admit, the republicans have spent their share of money. Not as bad as bo, but we got a lot of bad spending over many years, with no accountability.

I think for progress to be made, gubment needs to realize it has a spending problem. Like an addict, admitting you have a problem is the first step"

Never said bush spending was better than bo, just that bo has spent more. Note, the 'many years' part.

Deemed to pass: "Republican leaders are openly mocking a tactic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is considering that would enable House Democrats to pass the Senate's healthcare proposal without voting directly on it.

The GOP objective: to render the reform package even more unpopular and politically dangerous by highlighting the extraordinary measures that Democrats are willing to resort to to pass it.

Democratic leaders already plan to employ the parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation. Under reconciliation, Congress agrees on general objectives and uses reconciliation to plug in specific numbers later. It is intended to streamline legislative debates and amendments related to budget-related legislation.

Reconciliation became necessary following Sen. Scott Brown's upset win in Massachusetts, which cost Senate Democrats the 60th vote they need to head off any filibuster of new legislation.

Unlike regular legislation, reconciliation requires a simple majority – 51 Senate votes – rather than the 60 votes needed to bring a bill to a vote on the Senate floor.

Pelosi faces an additional problem, however: Many members of her caucus believe that voting for the Senate's unpopular healthcare bill could be politically fatal, even with the subsequent changes in the reconciliation process that Senate Democrats are promising to make.

Pelosi's solution: another maneuver, called "deem and pass."

In its resolution on the reconciliation changes it wants, the House simply would "deem" that it had passed the Senate legislation — without members of Congress actually ever voting on it.

Representatives presumably then could tell constituents that, although they voted on changes to the Senate bill, they never approved the bill itself.

Democrats on the House Rules Committee say there is plenty of precedent for the "deem-and-pass" technique, also known as a "self-executing rule." In 1996, it was used in House Resolution 391, "The Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act." In 1993, it was employed to adjust House Resolution 71, the "Family Medical Leave Act."

Conservatives counter that there is a vast difference between using "deem and pass" as a convenient, bipartisan way to enact modest changes to relatively routine legislation, and using it as a partisan tool to force a major entitlement program through Congress. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that, for a bill to become law, it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate."

"There is no precedent for what they're trying to do in the House right now," Brian Darling, the Heritage Foundation's director of Senate relations, tells Newsmax. "There is precedent for using deeming regulations and self-executing rules. But in this situation, they're trying to set up a circumstance where the House will pass a bill with no vote being taken on it, and at the same time pass a reconciliation measure. So that makes it unprecedented." http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-healthcare-vote-democrats/2010/03/16/id/352913

Here is what I said about pre existing conditions: "The jury is still out so to speak on the cost of this. My thinking is just pay the fine until I need insurance, then get some. No pre existing conditions, so why should I pay money into something I am getting nothing out of? Plus, for emergencies, we already have an income adjusted state run hospital. Yeah, you have to wait a long time, but they actually have some good doctors."

If you read it, you see I am saying that pre existing conditions do not apply to bocare, so I can get insurance then.

I posted the Forbes article for discussion, they said it would raise the rates. I also said the jury was out on the cost of my bocare too.

 

This actually deserves a post of it's own. I know what a debt ceiling is. I also know what a budget it, and can do simple math. If you just keep raising the debt ceiling every time you approach it, claiming the world will end if you don't, you are in trouble, whether a person, business or gubment.

The problem, in my opinion, is that nobody is addressing why we keep on needing to raise the debt ceiling. So, if we keep on raising it, we will keep on pilling on more debt. If you keep on maxing out your credit cards, get the limit raised, then max them out, and repeat that several times, how is your life going to be?

I will ignore your insults. I can explain to a child what a budget is.

No, it is responsible management to spend the amount you take in, or less. Now, obviously, a thing like the gubment will go over at times, and we should pay that. But, just raising the debt ceiling every time, doing nothing to address why we are raising it is just stupid. Saying raising the debt limit is 'responsible financial management' is well, it is your opinion.

What you can borrow, or print, is not your worth.

 

I agree.

Well, except about religion. I can find some links... Just joking. :-D

 

I've perused this thread with not a little amusement and much head shaking. I am not at all impressed with links to articles that support one side or the other side of this discussion . . . you can find as many examples of either with just a few seconds search:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-v-bush-on-spending-debt-and-growth-of-government

Or: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

Or: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398

My point being you can find any number of publications or pundits who claim to have the real story on federal spending . . . and I don't give a rat's rump. The point is the spending needs to be reeled in because we as a nation are on route for a major crash . . . we already have a mind boggling debt that our children and grandchildren are going to be stuck with.

Enough is enough. You can show graphs, juggle numbers with cute accounting tricks and fiscal slight of hand gimmicks all day every day - but there is no doubt that the federal government spends too much money. There is too much fraud and abuse, and too many years of politicians promising things they cannot afford to buy votes. It's madness.

 

Need more public servants. And, someone should raze K Street to the ground...

:major

 

Well said. I totally agree. No matter what numbers you want to use, the gubment been spending too much $ for too long. I blame the republicans just as much as the democrats.

Sorry if I got political. Try to stay away from that here. Obviously don't always succeed. :-o

 

Agreed hahaha i am surprised you have not closed this thread yet :-D.