jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (188 posts)

Is the Tea Party the new Death Panel?

  1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
    Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago

    Tea Party activists in the House of Representatives want to shut down the U.S. government. They say it'll teach America who really is in charge. What's more, they say that not passing a federal budget by the Oct. 1 deadline will cut government back to the levels imagined by the founding fathers.

    That's a lot to think about. Not paying for the federal portion of hospital care will mean no operations.
    Not paying for the 16 security services will mean that jihadists will be free to kill at will. Not paying for prisons will mean chaos.

    This list could go on. But the point to question is still the same: Is the Tea Party the new Death Panel?

    1. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So you mean you won't voluntarily give to hospitals, security services and prisons to help keep them running? That's pretty nasty, man.

      On another note - who the hell needs 16 security services anyway?? Simply encourage voluntary neighbourhood security forces and people will contribute as what they feel appropriate.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You have to ask who will have the money to give to hospitals for their services and as far as neighborhood security forces how many George Zimmerman's can we take out there?

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          With no IRS, nobody's going to come arrest you if you keep all of your money, or give it where you feel appropriate. I don't understand your second question.

    2. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have actual quotes from tea party members saying that or are you just repeating accusations from left wing outlets? Specifically I would like to know who said, "it'll teach America who really is in charge"

      1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That was a quote from a college-educated, Tea Party supporter who hopes the government shuts down on Monday.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That might be true, but you have to remember that the GOP members were voted into office by constituents that badly want to see the ACA defunded.

          It's a foolish politician that runs on one platform and then switches to the other side - just to get along.

          They are not going to defund Obamacare - it's going to fall all on its own accord.The government won't shut down. It's all a bunch of hooey designed to make us think they're actually doing something.

          1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
            Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, I'd bet you don't even know what Obamacare does. Only 1 in 5 Americans do--that it supports families in buying private health insurance when they lose their jobs, etc. And 80% of all Americans won't be affected by it at first, except that it has forced companies to lower their health insurance premiums because of the new competition. And yes, in Fox News Land you'll hear the opposite.

            1. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well, it appears you believe you are one of the the one in five's that do know the details. If so, perhaps a little more information might help your understanding.

              Rather than try to correct you misstatements individually, allow me to point you to a very recent Forbes article that does address most of them. I believe Forbes is a generally credible source, and this particular article is supported by, and uses data from a while bunch of reputable acronym organizations - including Obama's own HHS.

              Unfortunately, for one of us, it appears to contradict almost your entire post.

              I am not one of the one-in-fives that claim to understand the details. Actually, the more I try to find out, the more conflicting the explanations become. It usually comes down to evaluating the source.

              I think this Forbes article is fairly trustworthy. Why don't you check it out and see if you do too. Or, at least you will know what Forbes details to debunk.


              http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca … for-women/

              GA

        2. Onusonus profile image88
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So it's just some dude you know that said it. Interesting. neutral

        3. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But you said/inferred it was a House member.....

          "Tea Party activists in the House of Representatives want to shut down the U.S. government. They say it'll teach America who really is in charge. "

          But now the quote came from a Tea Party supporter instead? And my goodness, are you giving that quote source more weight because it was "college educated?"

          GA

    3. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      By using these scare tactics, the GOP are effectively giving up reason and are sending the message that it's acceptable to terrorize society to achieve something, if you cannot win the political argument. Is that really the best message to be sending?

      It also undermines the democratic process. The ACA has been passed by all branches of government, (being upheld by the Supreme Court), and was one of the issues voted on in the 2012 election which the President won. Don't like it? Want to repeal it? No problem. All the GOP have to do is convince us they have a better alternative. By stamping their feet and holding their breath until they turn red, the GOP are only convincing us of one thing: they are not fit to govern.

    4. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Those are some pretty broad statements, and taken as broad blanket declarations, there are some problems.

      First, Although I see you corrected this misstatement in a later post; there is no federal budget to be passed by Oct. 1 - Obama has not presented a federal budget for passage since he took office. It is - as you corrected, a Continuing Resolution to increase the nation's credit limit that must be passed.

      And as for you closure effects:
      1) Federal prison personnel will not be affected. Federal prisons will operate as normal.

      2) of the security services - they too will remain fully functional, only non-essential personnel, (office/clerical/maintenance etc.) will be furloughed. So no, I don't think the jihadists will be any more free to kill than when the government is running.

      3) But, metaphorically speaking, you may be right about the Tea Party being "the new death panel" except it may be the death of extreme liberal initiatives and their constitutional circumnavigations that they preside over.

      oops, almost forgot, non-elective hospital services will also continue as normal. The closure would only effect the time of federal payments.

      I considered providing links to support my corrections, but I found them all with another of those famous "20 minute Google searches" - so it would probably benefit you more if you found them yourself.

      As another poster mentioned farther down, the "tea party activists" as you describe them are actually doing what their constituents elected them to do. As you are probably aware, the Senate is comprised of representatives for each state, elected to represent their state, whereas the House is comprised of representatives of specific election districts - elected to represent a specific group of citizens.

      So it appears, you are denigrating them for doing what they were elected to do - rather than to just "go along to get along"

      GA

  2. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    My hope is that if the government shuts down, that when they try and start it up again they've found that they've forgotten how, and therefore have to keep it shut forever.

    1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes! Then Mexicans will be free to come and go at the borders; you and I will be free to rob banks, and we'll get all the 50 Cal. automatics we want. And the kids won't have to go to school so they can shoot people right along with us.

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What's so scary about the Mexicans coming? There's no welfare due to the government shut down so you won't have to pay for them if you don't want to. Do you just not like Mexicans? You're saying the only thing stopping you from robbing a bank is government? You don't regulate your own behaviour? You won't send your children to school?

        Odd.

      2. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh I see now. Obviously this statement makes it clear you just started this thread to rant. That's fine. I just misunderstood, I thought you were talking about the real world. I'm sorry I butted in with facts that are not needed.

        GA

        1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The point is that by holding the absolutist position of not negotiating with the Democrats about the future of Americans' health insurance, the Tea Party backs the policy of letting people go bankrupt over health care and using the emergency rooms as their primary care provider (and dying). I just wondered who, if anyone, here really cared one iota about it. I see that my question has been answered.

          But I guarantee you that the one quarter of the population of Texas without health insurance will be happily hellacious when the heath insurance exchanges open on Tuesday, allowing them to buy insurance.

          Take Note: "The Department of Health and Human Services has released a new report indicating that Texas consumers will see increased competition with the Health Insurance Marketplace — and premiums that cost less than originally anticipated. According to the report, Texas consumers will have the opportunity to choose from an average of 54 health plans in the Marketplace. Those plans will be categorized as either “gold,” “silver” or “bronze.” Young adults will also have the option of purchasing a “catastrophic” plan, increasing their number of choices."
          http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/b … miums.html

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Once again, let me point you to the same Forbes article.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca … for-women/

            One of the clues indicating "spin" in your link article is explained in the Forbes report. which discusses in length the 15 page HHS report that your article references.

            And what is that clue? The HHS report bases all comparison claims on their earliest "projected" premium costs - not real life "actual" premium costs.

            The Forbes article does a much better job of explaining this than I can - so go have a look. Who knows, maybe you'll decide that the San Antonio Business Journal has a much more credible interpretation of the HHS report than Forbes did. (and all its supporting acronym orgs.). Especially since it is saying what you want to hear.

            ps. you might also stumble across the mention, re. that 25% Texas coverees (I know - not a real word) may have something to do with ACA's expansion of the Medicaid (free health ins.) program coverage.

            Oh, well. Enough for now.

            GA

      3. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Illegal aliens are already free to come and go, and they already do.  The flood has already happened and has been happening since the possibility of immunity began being seriously discussed.

        The vast majority of school funding comes from the states, so you likely won't see many if any schools shut.

        Police forces receive the vast majority of their funding from a local level, so you likely won't see many if any police stations shut.

        1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I guess, then, it'll be a party. But .... almost all educational institutes are supported by federal funding. And  the matter at hand, health care, the U.S. government already pays  50% of the funding (for training physicians, etc.). So let's party down.

          Don't you think it's interesting the more progressives want the shutdown than Tea Party conservatives. That's because the progressives believe that the Republican Party is going to take the heat, especially with the excellent health care exchanges opening with lower priced policies? (lifted from meet the press, Aug. 29)

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Only the federal government would waste money on a party when there is a pending shutdown. 

            Look, I'm a conservative, and I don't support a shutdown.  Still, some people are getting a bit dramatic; others are giving poor examples of how a shutdown would really impact services.  My school receives a whopping 6% of its funding from the federal government.  We're certainly not going to throw a party if there is a temporary loss of funds, but our doors won't be shutting.

    2. psycheskinner profile image79
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because screw wounded veterans and people who need firefighters.  There fault for being a soldier and having a house.

  3. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    Shutting the government down (at least to some extent) seems to be the new political terrorism practiced in the US.  By all sides, and without care as to gets hurt when the children in Wash. play their silly game.

    And it will continue until the American people say, in a loud voice, "ENOUGH!" and boot the scumbags out in favor of hiring someone willing to actually run the country.

    1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What is surprising is that those who want to shrink government already won. There's hardly been any new hiring since Obama came to office. And the states have laid off 200,000 civil servants, many of them teachers and police.

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Let me apologize again for inserting facts into a rant, but, since you list specific figures - you should at least use the correct ones.

        From the end of Bush's last year, through 2011, the number of federal employees increased by 267,885, or 14.4% (Bush is responsible for 4.1% of that)

        Even with the numerous federal department and agency hiring freezes - that's still over a quarter-million new federal jobs.

        a Politifacts "fact check" of a John Boehner statement came up with a figure of 107, 057 new federal jobs filled in 2009 & 2010 alone.

        Once again, this info came from a very quick Google search, which you should do yourself if you think I am wrong. But I'll give you a clue - the first info comes from the fed's Office of Personnel Management, and the fed's Bureau of labor Statistics.

        So it appears that the federal government hasn't been doing the shrinking you think it has.

        As for the 200,000 state reductions, hmmm, after seeing the error of your first statement, I stopped looking after the Federal part.

        GA

        1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "As Krugman quickly pointed out on his blog, the answer is “less.” Now, perhaps Paul was thinking of employment by the federal government alone, which did tick up just slightly: 2.77 million at the end 2008 versus 2.8 million currently. But add in state and local government jobs, and the hard number for government employment dropped by around 600,000 after Bush left office." http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 … der-obama/

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Ahh, I see. The context of your post was Obamacare and the federal government. But now you are saying. "well, I really meant ALL government."

            Well, then how does that relate to your condemnations of the House representatives? After all they are in the federal government. Did you mean you meant the legislative Tea Party activists in the state legislatures also?

            Wait, now you have lost me.... how do they come into the government shutdown picture?

            ps. thinkprogress.com is your source? Now , there is a trustworthy and unbiased or agenda driven source if I ever saw one. Just to be safe, maybe you should look around a little more

            GA

            GA

    2. tirelesstraveler profile image85
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is the 18 time the government has shut down in 40 years.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I know, hunh?
        It seemed to be a regular occurrence in the '70s and '80s.
        But after the 1996 shutdown.... long hiatus.
        Hmmmmm.

  4. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    I don't think any Tea Party members literally said that, and that's a pretty weak way to counter. It's like saying the Holocaust never happened because Hitler didn't say "I'm going to start the Holocaust". He did, however, make many statements to that effect, and I think that's what the Tea Party has done. Their hatred for Obama is more important to them than the American people they claim to serve, and that's where their "we're the ones with the power" idea comes from.

    They're so spoiled, arrogant and bratty that they'd rather shut the country down than make a few compromises. It seems they can't just accept loss when it happens. First it was Obama's birth certificate, then then idiotic comments about him being a socialist/fascist/Muslim/atheist/communist. Give it a rest already, conservatives, and start trying to actually do what you so often claim to want: help the country.

    1. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is interesting that you believe the president's accusations against the republicans wanting to shut down the government when he is the one who refuses to budge on anything. He is the one who wants full implementation of Obamacare without compromise. Even after his own supporters have described it as a "train wreck" and according to James Hoffa, president of the teamsters union, it is "a nightmare" that will break the 40 hour work week.
      This president's polarizing capabilities have fewer limits than a Democrat controlled Senate. Everyone in his cabinet is a hard left extremist, he surrounds himself with hard left extremists, he went to school with hard left extremists, he was taught by hard left extremists, he was raised by hard left extremists. He eats it, breaths it, and sleeps it, and when he doesn't get his way he runs and cries to his slobbering media elitist buddies who unceasingly coddle and defend his slurry of failed policies.

      https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1378299_10201271505322153_1208959796_n.jpg

      1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, Obama is a moderate when it comes to many things. If he were this radical lefty you talk about, he'd laugh at the people who want to stop paying America's debts. Then, he use an executive order to force payment. And shortly the Supreme Court would agree with him because it's in the Constitution that America will not default on it's debts.

        With regards to the CR, the budget resolution that keeps the government open after Monday, if Obama were a radical, he shut down Congress by refusing to pay for it. And then use the remaining income to pay for non budget bills, like Social Security and Medicare.

        As an aside, do you realize the hate Obama folks are spending $500 million to advertise lies about the Affordable Care Act?

        1. Onusonus profile image88
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          A moderate who supports, OWS, the Arab Spring, socialized medicine, the Muslim brotherhood, considered giving aid to Al Qaeda in Syria, sold out Poland's missile defense shield to Russia, gave Russia the serial numbers to trident missiles sold to Great Britain, sold F-16 fighter jets to Egypt, doubled the national debt, he's pro abortion, pro Keynesian economics, spent 30 years attending a racist church, the only US. president who has officially lived under no less than three aliases. His cabinet members lied to the public about Benghazi, covered up fast and furious, He shakes hands and smiles with brutal Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chaves.
          He sides with Venezuela and Cuba (another brutal dictatorship) against our allies Columbia and Honduras. He campaigned on having no-conditions, high-level meetings with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the rabid, barking-mad dictator of a country (Iran) that is responsible for virtually all of the ongoing acts of terror leveled against the US since they declared war on America in 1979, and which grows daily closer to developing and using an atomic bomb. In Afghanistan President Obama has made it clear to the Taliban that they will not be crushed as the Iraqi insurgents were under George Bush’s surge, but will rather simply have to run out the clock until some arbitrary date for our publicly scheduled retreat in shame and defeat.

          He bows to Saudi Princes, he praises the Mullahs against the protesters giving their lives for freedom in the streets of Tehran as they are shot dead trying to topple our mortal enemy. And instead of using the influence of his office to pressure Egyptian President Mubarak on freedom FROM DAY ONE, he instead mangles the situation in such a way that no ally we have in the world has the slightest confidence in us whatsoever.

          And finally, the boy who was raised in Indonesia can return as a man and as President to the land of his childhood -- where Israelis are not allowed to set foot in country; where, in some provinces, Sharia courts allow stoning to death for adultery; where 100 lashes with a whip is meted out for the crime of homosexuality; where female circumcision is practiced openly; where so-called “honor mutilations” go unpunished, if not celebrated, and where political and religious repression exist that would boggle the American mind -- and say, with his megawatt smile, that Indonesia and America are bound together by “shared values.”

          Does that really sound like a moderate to you?

          1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
            Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sounds like you really hate Obama.

            1. Onusonus profile image88
              Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ah, good old liberal logic. When presented with facts, accuse the other person of being hateful. Nice rebuttal.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And when the other side presents you with reality accuse them of liberal logic!
                Whatever that might mean.

                1. Onusonus profile image88
                  Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The only Liberal reality that he has presented to me is the notion that the president is a moderate. And he may be right (According to liberal logic). After all Obama hasn't eaten the heart out of an enemy and broadcast it on television like the Syrian rebels did, he just sent arms to them.  But for some unknown reason that makes him a moderate. Sorry for asking the question, I guess looking at the presidents track record makes me a hater. Enjoy that Nobel peace prize... lol

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, that does not make him a moderate, but then it does not make him a left winger or liberal either.
                    Sounds like full on capitalism to me.

                    Your right wing logic is seriously flawed.

        2. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Billy - could you link us to corroboration of your "$500 million" dollar claim?

          1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
            Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            One example: "Critics of the health law spent a whopping $400 million on television spots criticizing the law since 2010, over five times the $75 million that the law’s supporters have spent on ads promoting it. Analysts expect $1 billion in expenditures by 2015."
            http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07 … formation/

            "In total, the health-care law has drawn more advertising dollars than any other single political issue since Obama was first elected in 2008, Wilner says. And organizations have spent far more campaigning to block or repeal the Affordable Care Act than to support it — $235 million since between when it passed in March 2010 and the Supreme Court ruling in 2012, according to Kantark ...  The [new round of commercials, he says, could help elect representatives who will work to repeal Obamacare in 2013 special elections and in the 2014 midterms."
            http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-an … 2013-03-19

            "Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group found that since March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, ObamaCare critics have spent $400 million on television spots compared with supporters' $75 million."
            303551-obamacare-critics-outspent-supporters-51-on-ads-analysis-finds-

            These figures give the impression that about $500 million will be spent in total to stop (pre-passage) or get rid (post passage) of Obamacare. What is amazing is that the law passed and stood up against this much pressure. I suspect that because the health industry and the insurance companies support it has a lot to do with that.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Those appear to be critics. I looked at your links and I could not determine that they were "advertising lies," however.

              1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
                Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'd like to get back on topic. The Tea Party is now the death panel ...right? ... determining what government programs will operalte and what won't to save lives. I bet the 30 million people who use ER rooms instead of having doctors would think so.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Is there a topic being discussed?

    1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think the topic that stands out is that many people rebel against the facts about the Affordable Care Act. They're convinced it's wrong .... for what ever crazy lie they been told. But what I like best is that critics really do not want 30 million people to have health insurance. As if it is a zero sum game: if you get insurance, I lose mine.

      Fortunately, the know nothing party is not going to win this one. Shortly the stock market will drop several thousand points and speaker Boehner is going to get some pretty demanding phone calls--from billionaires.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Now you don't. Until the ACA your insurance company could drop you just when you needed them most. And they have done it.
    Medical costs are the leading cause of bankrupcty in the United States.
    Logic would tell you, that people on welfare do not have a reason to go bankrupt, do they?
    These are WORKING families devastated by medical costs.
    And yes, even with insurance.

    But whatever.
    BTW the government already makes decisions about your healthcare.
    Every prescription drug you take has been first approved by the FDA.
    Your insurance company has a whole lot more decision making authority than the government -- and still will. Unless, of course, you are on Medicaid.
    Yes, low-income workers can be on Medicaid. I have no reason to assume you are not qualified.

    1. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So we're trading a flawed system for a disaster that will raise the average cost of insurance to individuals by thousands, cause unemployment to rise, force religious institutions to provide services that are in fundamental opposition to their own beliefs, and prompt employers to opt for the cheaper insurance. Thus kicking millions of working Americans off their preferred medical insurance plans.

      This system, by the way, is such an ingenious idea that the same people who created it have exempted themselves from it.   

      http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/liberal-logic-101-514.jpg

  7. Jonathan Janco profile image81
    Jonathan Jancoposted 3 years ago

    I don't really understand the blame the Tea party logic to this whole thing. EVERY Republican except for two(2) in the House of Reps voted for a government shutdown. 2 Dems in the House of Reps and 8 in the Senate voted for it. So, I totally reject that it's the Tea Party, it is in fact the entire Republican party apparently with the exception of 2 US Reps. That's not a party fringe, that's a party on the fringe.

  8. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 3 years ago

    http://townhall.com/columnists/thomasso … t-n1716292

    Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

    There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

    This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

    As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
    Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

    ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

    But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

    The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

    Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

    The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

    If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility. -Thomas Sowell

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
      Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lol, people actually believe that?

      1. Onusonus profile image88
        Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it's called separation of powers. A nice little part of American law that keeps well intended libs from destroying the country.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh well, only another year and a half before we send the Tea Fiesta packing

          1. Onusonus profile image88
            Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Oh well, so much for a constitutional republic. Anybody got a match?
            http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Obama-Destroying-US-Constitution.jpg

      2. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        They should because it is accurate and true.  Please be precise, technical and specific as you point out exactly what part of Thomas Sowell's article you think isn't true.

  9. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Here's what Wikipedia says about this shutdown:

    "Due to disagreement regarding inclusion of language defunding or delaying the Affordable Care Act, the Government has not passed a funding bill. The House continues to offer bills to fund important, non-contested agencies, but the Senate, controlled by Harry Reid, has not considered them[15]. The shutdown is currently in progress."

  10. 61
    tbHistorianposted 3 years ago

    The USA government is working just as designed. 
    The founding fathers design provides for checks and balances to ensure that no tyranny will be present within the republic. 
    Currently the debate is whether to fund or not fund a bill that:
    1. had to be signed before it could be read.
    2. exempts the Congress and most government employees.
    3. has resulted in numerous exemptions to partisan organizations based on Presidential edicts.
    4. has resulted in a discriminatory delay for some companies based on Presidential edict.
    5. increases healthcare and insurance costs for hard working Americans.
    6. eliminates full-time jobs.
    7. does not provide more doctors, nurses, or healthcare support in any manner.
    The bill that is creating the controversy was not introduced by the Tea Party, but has been shown to be discriminatory against, detrimental to, and destructive for hard working Americans.
    The true "Death Panel" is engaged as part of the policy generated in support of the Bill that was so blindly approved.
    There are no winners under this concept of discrimination.

    1. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Some questions in response to your points:

      1. Was the ACA passed by the House and the Senate?
      2. Has the ACA been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS?
      3. Did the architect of the ACA run on a platform of health care reform in the 2012 election?
      6. Did he win?
      7. Did those opposing the ACA run on a platform of repealing it should they win, in the 2012 election?
      8. Did they win?
      9. Is there a well established process for amending/ repealing laws (which doesn't put the financial well-being of the country at risk)?
      10. Which is a better form of governance:

      A: legislation is amended/repealed because it has been ruled unconstitutional, or those wanting change have presented their case decisively and have convinced voters and their colleagues in government that there is a viable and beneficial alternative.

      Or

      B: legislation is amended/repealed because those wanting change threaten to shut down the government if they don't get what they want.

      This is about more than one piece of legislation. It's about abiding by the well established democratic processes, rather than trying to circumvent those processes because you don't like the outcome.

      1. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Don, of course you realize that since no law can force us to buy a product, it was ruled constitutional only as a tax, (something that Obama insisted it wasn't, until it had to be because any other way it is unconstitutional).  Just one more thing highlighting the lies and deception that are the hallmark of  Obama(demo)care. 

        Does the dishonesty, misrepresentation and manipulation utilized to force this down our throats mean nothing to you?  Do you truly not see it?

        By the way, since it does only exist as a tax, why are we not factoring this in when calculating the TAX increases under Obama?

        Our $2500 promised savings has turned into a $7500 increase.  I don't know about you, but I can't afford that kind of "savings".  I already pay plenty in taxes, without having to pay such a high premium to have my health care decimated.   Reminds me of Kevin Bacon in Animal House..."thank you Sir, may I have another?"

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If you disagree with the Supreme Court decision, there are established processes in place by which you can seek remedy. I'm not just making this up, it's happened! Some Supreme Court decisions have historically been reversed, overruled by amendments to the constitution etc. The difference is that these changes were preceded by those calling for the change actually winning the public and political debate. No one is saying you can't disagree with the SCOTUS, or ask for a law to be repealed, but you and the Republicans don't get special treatment. You have to follow the same processes as anyone else to bring about the changes you want to see. 

          Republicans had the opportunity to win the public and political debate on Obamacare in the House, in the Senate, in the 2008 general election, the 2012 general election, in representations to the Supreme Court. It failed to do so on every occasion. Now, it it truly believes in it's case, it must go through the hard slog of convincing the people, and colleagues in government that the law should be repealed, which they are perfectly entitled to do. That is how democracy works. Those processes have developed over the course of hundreds of years and they are there for a reason. Stability. Circumventing those processes is irresponsible and dangerous. Worse, it's already causing people who absolutely don't deserve it, real pain.

          1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
            Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's interesting that some people are saying the Affordable Care Act has failed before is comes into existence January 1, 2014.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There are components of the law already in effect and they are helping people.
              Yet, we  do not hear anyone arguing against those.
              The main -- dare I say only -- argument against ACA seems to be the individual mandate.
              The government can't tell me I HAVE to have insurance.
              Really?
              Do you drive a car???
              If you do, you have to carry (read: BUY) insurance to register it and drive it legally.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What does a car have to do with health insurance?  Are you seriously equating the choice to buy a car (and thus buy insurance to protect someone else) with being alive (and thus buying insurance to protect yourself)?

              2. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mighty Mom, do you realize that if I choose not to drive a car - I don't have to buy automobile insurance?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  But you still have to pay for roads even if you don't drive.

                  1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Roads are mostly supported by a steep use tax on gasoline. If you don't drive - you're not paying that tax.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Howard is right in that most road monies come from gas tax.  But in addition, whether you drive a car or not, you use the roads - your groceries don't magically appear on your doorstep each morning.

                    We all benefit hugely from roads - the interstate highway system in the states was instrumental in making the country the financial and production powerhouse it is (or was, if you prefer).

              3. 84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I know somebody who has benefitted.  However, he fully acknowledges that our country will go broke because of the kind of freebees he has received.  He's a liberal Democrat. 

                Even IF it helps millions of people, how great will Obamacare be if it bankrupts us?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How strange! A country with an economy built on health care and private profits of such carers!

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't understand your point.  Please elaborate.

                2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
                  Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  War is what will bankrupt the U.S.--as has all empires--not Obamacare.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Game, set and match to Dr Billy Kidd.

                  2. HowardBThiname profile image90
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    War is definitely a huge draw on our resources, and we would do well to quit waging our little wars around the globe.

                  3. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Although I am against Obamacare, I agree - the right, if they are serious about budgetary issues, need to look at the military sector.

                  4. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Obamacare is a larger slice of the economy, 1/6 of the economy. 

                    President Obama increased the war effort in Afghanistan and then wanted military action against Syria.  With President Obama, we have a triple financial drain: war, Obamacare, and out-of-control domestic spending.

                    Which one will bankrupt us is kind of a moot point.  All three will contribute to bankruptcy.

            2. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Billy - that's because (financially) it's already failed. It punishes the lower-middle class. In what world can that be deemed a success?

              1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
                Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I enjoy your comments Howard. The government subsidy calculator from Kaiser http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/   shows that a parent and child household making $20,000 a  year would only be paying $400 for the year. But you have to make the monthly payments first in order to get the refund that brings it down to $400. So it could be that ObamaCare will punish those who make just over the line and cannot receive Medicaid. (I didn't get the info on what the monthly payment would be.)

                1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                  HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The Kaiser calculator is a good one. Now, log back on and select Florida, or any state that is not expanding Medicaid and enter a zip from that state. I'm thinking of a single mother - like you searched for - that makes only $10,000 per year at her part-time job. Look at the premium she must pay - then look at how much of a subsidy she qualifies for. Nothing.

                  1. Don W profile image82
                    Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Did I miss something? The eligibility requirements for family-related Medicaid in Florida are:

                    Children under age 1 with household income less than 200% of FPL.
                    Children ages 1 through 5 with household income less than 133% FPL.
                    Children ages 6 to 19 with household income less than 100% FPL

                    http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/acc … tsheet.pdf

                    The income in your example is 42% FPL.

      2. HowardBThiname profile image90
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Don, most of your questions are without merit, but Number 2 is interesting and the answer is "No."

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm pretty sure the answer to number 2 was yes...

          1. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, there were only two facets of the ACA that the Supremes addressed. One was the personal mandate - which they upheld - but only as a "tax" and the second was the constitutionality of forced Medicaid expansion, which they denied. The law, in its entirety was not addressed.

        2. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Do you hold yourself in such high esteem that you believe you can simply assert something without providing any reasoning to support it? Do you believe we should be so enamored of you that we should immediately be convinced something is true on the grounds that you said it?

          I suggest you back up that statement with some reasoning, if for no other reason than to avoid looking like an egomaniac. However, if simply stating a contrary opinion is the level of discourse you prefer then: no those questions don't lack merit, the affordable care act is constitutional, and the Republicans (and you) are wrong.

          1. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I did. See above.

          2. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Whatever happened to you after I explained why Number 2 was "No/"

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not going to split hairs with you. The individual mandate (which is the part most Republicans are up in arms about) was ruled to be constitutional. If it wasn't the law would not exist in it's current form.

              The point is that the ACA has successfully gone through all branches of government. The Democrat architect of the law ran on a platform of it's implementation, and his Republican opponent ran on a platform of repealing it as soon as possible. The public voted for the Democrat. Therefore the ACA is the Senate's will, the House's will, the people's will, and the judiciary have ruled it constitutional. So by every political measure, there is a mandate for the ACA. So instead of doing everything they can to make it fail, why doesn't the GOP (and you for that matter) present us with a viable alternative, or at least suggest ways the ACA can be improved. Objecting to a law purely on the grounds that it's "socialist" is idiotic. The criteria should, be does it work? If it does, great. If it doesn't what can be done to improve it? I take it you hope you are proven wrong about the ACA and that it does in fact provide millions of people the opportunity to have health care, without causing an economic apocalypse, right? Do you agree that would be the best outcome?

              1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't object to the ACA because its socialism. I object because it is fiscally unstable.

                You should know that there are suits working their way up the court system as we speak. The mandate was upheld. The medicaid expansion was denied. The SCOTUS has not heard a case about the entirety of the law. They will hear more bits and pieces in the coming months.

                It would be nice if everyone could have healthcare - but this bill does just the opposite. It punishes the poor. Don't believe me - I don't have time right now to dispel your misunderstandings. Wait and see.

                1. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No you think it's fiscally unstable. Others disagree. The fact you didn't even mention that someone earning 10k a year might be exempt from the individual mandate doesn't give me confidence in your opinion.



                  Predictions about what may happen in the future does not change the fact that right now the individual mandate has been ruled constitutional.



                  That doesn't address what I asked. Do you hope you are proved wrong about the ACA? And do you agree that the best outcome would be if Obamacare was a complete success?

                  1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There is no possibility that Obamacare "can" be a success, so I can't address the fantastical question. Yes, there are a number of exemptions from the mandate, and I've mentioned many, but that's not why the law will fail. There are exemptions for religious groups. There are exemptions if the premium is more than 8% of your income, there are exemptions if you would have qualified for Medicaid under the expansion, but your state chose not to.

                    Math-wise - this Act simply does not work. I think it's bad that the poor will be punished, but aside from that - the ACA is actuarially unfeasible.

                2. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It punishes virtually everybody.

  11. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 3 years ago

    https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1384303_10153364631450515_2054185698_n.jpg

 
working