Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[misko27]

Although I'm certainly with the Democrats here, I certainly think they could give up the individual mandate for a while. And if that's all the Republicans ask for, I'd say that's a pretty sweet deal. A functioning government and economy for one delayed tax.

Problem: The gains of "The same economy and government we had before, except now slightly shittier" doesn't speak for much, especially since they could do it again. Recall a clean CR would fund the government through Nov 15. That's now 5 days more then a month. And they have used these, before, to extract budget cuts. They will do it again, despite being the minority party in half of Congress.

I say that in this particular crisis, so far, Obama has done nothing, not one thing, I myself would not have done.

[10ebbor10]

Besides, it shapes a precedent. It's not good that if you control either house or Congress, you get to control the entire country by risking the economy.

As a side note, the economic cost of the previous 21 day shutdown amounted to approximately 1% of the GDP of that year. Nearly 3 month's of shutdown would result in significant and perhaps irreversible damage.

[lue]

Helgoland: And I agree. The Democrats shouldn't have to compromise on anything. As the White House says, the House shouldn't be rewarded for doing their job. I'm just saying that I'd be fine with a delay on the individual mandate purely as a means of ending all this. It's not politically or policywise optimal for the ACA, but if that's all it takes to reopen the government and not default, I'd be OK.

Of course, if the GOP demands more than just a delay of the individual mandate (and perhaps the medical device tax?), no dice.

(As an aside, I must admit I'm slightly suspicious of forcing people to pay a fine for not getting health insurance. If the ACA is so awesome, why wouldn't people just clamor for the insurance, like the server issues on the exchanges would suggest is currently happening?)

Although I'm certainly with the Democrats here, I certainly think they could give up the individual mandate for a while. And if that's all the Republicans ask for, I'd say that's a pretty sweet deal. A functioning government and economy for one delayed tax.

Problem: The gains of "The same economy and government we had before, except now slightly shittier" doesn't speak for much, especially since they could do it again. Recall a clean CR would fund the government through Nov 15. That's now 5 days more then a month. And they have used these, before, to extract budget cuts. They will do it again, despite being the minority party in half of Congress.

I say that in this particular crisis, so far, Obama has done nothing, not one thing, I myself would not have done.

The gains aren't great, but they're infinitely better than the failure option. I'm not at all confident that we'll fix the government in those more critical ways until Democrats take control of the House in 2014 (yes, I'm hopeful this will occur). Look at how much effort it takes to keep a functioning government and world economy! I can't imagine anything being improved until we at least boot the Tea Party out of office, or alternatively take control of the House.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Helgoland: And I agree. The Democrats shouldn't have to compromise on anything. As the White House says, the House shouldn't be rewarded for doing their job. I'm just saying that I'd be fine with a delay on the individual mandate purely as a means of ending all this. It's not politically or policywise optimal for the ACA, but if that's all it takes to reopen the government and not default, I'd be OK/

You shouldn't be fine with it, regardless of how you feel about the ACA. If that happens, what the Tea Party has done will become politically legitimate to both parties, and then every time there is a budget to pass Congress will play this suicidal brinksmanship game to receive their pound of flesh. And it won't stop happening for a long time, not unless one of the parties simultaneously controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

[misko27]

Helgoland: And I agree. The Democrats shouldn't have to compromise on anything. As the White House says, the House shouldn't be rewarded for doing their job. I'm just saying that I'd be fine with a delay on the individual mandate purely as a means of ending all this. It's not politically or policywise optimal for the ACA, but if that's all it takes to reopen the government and not default, I'd be OK/

You shouldn't be fine with it, regardless of how you feel about the ACA. If that happens, what the Tea Party has done will become politically legitimate to both parties, and then every time there is a budget to pass Congress will play this suicidal brinksmanship game to receive their pound of flesh. And it won't stop happening for a long time, not unless one of the parties simultaneously controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

lue, I was going to respond, but he did it too well. Damn it MSH, you gonna put me out of a job.

Anyway, apparently the debt ceiling gives the US Thirty Billion to work with (Apparently the sky does not actually rain from the Heavans, as we've widely assumed). According to the NYT, that will run out some time between the 22nd and the 30th, not counting the damage already done to shaky markets by passing it. At that point they start prioritizing as money comes in, most likely to bondholders, meaning a default will happen over several days. Also recently I learned China may be the largest foreign holder of US debt at 1.28 trillion; but the second largest is Japan with 1.14 trillion. Bet you didn't know about that! Why you may not be surprised by is both China and Japan are urging level heads and debt-ceiling raising.

Also, POSSIBLE PROGRESS IS HAPPENING OMG PREPARE YOURSELVES: The Boehner will attempt to pass a short-term hike, which Obama will probably support despite needing to do it again in by Nov 22nd, and not re-opening the government. This assumes hard-liners go for it. The Senate is attempting to pass a year-long extension of the debt ceiling, maybe even with some language from Republican Senate Leader McConnell allowing Obama more lee-way in determining how the sequester cuts what. This assumes republicans go for it.

[GlyphGryph]

Helgoland: And I agree. The Democrats shouldn't have to compromise on anything. As the White House says, the House shouldn't be rewarded for doing their job. I'm just saying that I'd be fine with a delay on the individual mandate purely as a means of ending all this. It's not politically or policywise optimal for the ACA, but if that's all it takes to reopen the government and not default, I'd be OK.

If it was just the delay of the individual mandate, fine. But it isn't, won't be, and can't be.

[Descan]

You can't let people not buy insurance, because one of the key points of the ACA is that you can't be turned down for insurance.

So what do you do? Do you buy insurance "for the future", and pay who knows how much money between now and when you get sick? Or do you buy insurance after you're sick and pay for a shorter period of time?

Everyone does that, no one is paying into insurance, and everyone is extracting from it. You can see how that'd be bad.

[lue]

Helgoland: And I agree. The Democrats shouldn't have to compromise on anything. As the White House says, the House shouldn't be rewarded for doing their job. I'm just saying that I'd be fine with a delay on the individual mandate purely as a means of ending all this. It's not politically or policywise optimal for the ACA, but if that's all it takes to reopen the government and not default, I'd be OK.

If it was just the delay of the individual mandate, fine. But it isn't, won't be, and can't be.

And since it likely won't be just the mandate, I'll likely not support a compromise. It's pretty bad when you have to trade a functioning government for terrible political precedents.

Also, on the subject of precedent, I recall this happening in 2011. Something about all the other crises has told the Tea Party that this is OK. They see a precedent for this already. It's not about preventing a precedent, the way I see it, but rather breaking one. That will only likely happen upon the jerks who go for this being voted out of office, which would tell them it's actually not OK. And that won't likely happen until we undo gerrymandering.

[Bauglir]

RE: Individual mandate

What Descan said is pretty much the practical answer. The philosophical one is that it's essentially a mildly evil workaround to get something vaguely resembling a good system working in a country that would collectively lose its mind if an actual universal healthcare system came into being, because we have this weird aversion to Nice Things.

[RedKing]

That will only likely happen upon the jerks who go for this being voted out of office, which would tell them it's actually not OK.

Unfortunately (if the past 20 years have been any indication) when the Republicans lose an election cycle, the lesson they seem to draw from it is that they lost because they weren't conservative enough. So they double-down on the crazy and load up for the next cycle.

It's like "the answer is always MOAR DAKKA", only with painfully regressive legislation instead of guns.

[lue]

RE: Individual mandate

What Descan said is pretty much the practical answer. The philosophical one is that it's essentially a mildly evil workaround to get something vaguely resembling a good system working in a country that would collectively lose its mind if an actual universal healthcare system came into being, because we have this weird aversion to Nice Things.

Reading his explanation more closely, it does make sense. "A new motivator for buying health insurance early" is far better a description than "fines if you choose not to buy".

I should also note that, should someone introduce true nationalized/socialized healthcare, I'd drop the ACA in a heartbeat.

That will only likely happen upon the jerks who go for this being voted out of office, which would tell them it's actually not OK.

Unfortunately (if the past 20 years have been any indication) when the Republicans lose an election cycle, the lesson they seem to draw from it is that they lost because they weren't conservative enough. So they double-down on the crazy and load up for the next cycle.

It's like "the answer is always MOAR DAKKA", only with painfully regressive legislation instead of guns.

My solution would be changing the way we vote to foster more than 2 parties (parliamentary systems tend to be awesome here, thinking of UK and DE). You can be as crazy as you want. You just won't get half the political makeup of the country for it.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, unfortunately, the parties in power like it this way, and nearly by definition, always will. Because the status quo in election rules is what got them into power in the first place. No sense rocking the boat. You'll see real bipartisan cooperation on this point, though you'll also see constant lip service to "election reform".

[lemon10]

Yeah, but I think they are pretty much reaching the limits of what they can do in that regard without being completely marginalized.

They *could* keep getting more extreme in theory, but pretty soon it is going to cost them the house (even with the power of gerrymandering) due to changing demographics. And unless they change, they aren't going to be able to regain power once that happens since the demographics won't get any better anytime in the foreseeable future.

To compound that is the fact that the schism in the party is getting more and more apparent. Eventually (if they keep going farther to the right at least) it will simply break the party in two.

That isn't to say that they won't keep going farther to the right, but it is going to hurt them more and more as time goes on.

[Morrigi]

I really don't understand all the fuss about the ACA. Especially because it looks like it won't be so affordable after all.

[misko27]

I still like the New York system of Electoral Fusion (I am very good at pushing my state). It allows you to support a seperate party, which is important for numerous reasons including money from the government, while voting for the same person, as long as that party has endorsed them. For example, New York has the Working Families party, which you could vote for instead of the democratic party in the governors election without "wasting your vote".

But did anyone read what I mentioned about possible progress? Anyone?

I really don't understand all the fuss about the ACA. Especially because it looks like it won't be so affordable after all.

If nothing else it actually reduced the government deficit from where it was, repealing it would increase it.