Why do Republicans never seem to come out ahead politically when they go toe-to-toe with the Democrats?
Maybe because the GOP’s priorities aren’t as broadly popular as the Dems’?
With the government teetering on the brink of partial shutdown, congressional Republicans vowed Sunday to keep using an otherwise routine federal funding bill to try to attack the president’s health care law.
That’s a fair summary. Obamacare doesn’t have anything to do with the expiration of the continuing resolution, and the GOP deserves 100% of the responsibility for tying the two together.
“Why do Republicans never seem to come out ahead politically when they go toe-to-toe with the Democrats?
Maybe because the GOP’s priorities aren’t as broadly popular as the Dems’?”
You don’t think Democrat party media has any influence? Guess those billions of dollars Obama spent on commercials had no effect. Media does have an effect.
“That’s a fair summary. Obamacare doesn’t have anything to do with…”
Does it matter what comes next in the sentence? On every single issue it is always the same line about Obama having nothing to do with it. Syria? Obama had nothing to do with it. Status of forces agreement in Iraq? Nothing with Obama. Unemployment? Look someplace else not at Obama. And on and on. Well, Obama does have something to do with what is going on with a potential shutdown, especially since Obama wants the shutdown to take place.
But nice dogma, I guess.
You seem to have read “Obama” where I wrote “Obamacare”.
To put it more clearly: the Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with the expiration of the continuing resolution. The Republicans are the ones tying them together.
Obama wants the shutdown to take place
If so, it’d be easy for the GOP to outsmart him. Just let the House vote on the clean continuing resolution that passed the Senate — it would pass, and then Obama would either have to sign it, or take the blame for a shutdown. Why isn’t Boehner doing that?
the Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with the expiration of the continuing resolution.
Not according to Harry Reid, who said he wouldn’t even allow the Continuing resolution to come to a vote because it included a delay in Obamacare implementation half of which Obama claims to want. By the way, the number of waivers granted by Obama for Obamacare numbers in the thousands. Thousands of waivers yet only 42 votes to repeal Obamacare. No votes by the Senate to fix Obamcare.
Harry Reid, who said he wouldn’t even allow the Continuing resolution to come to a vote because it included a delay in Obamacare implementation
No, Reid stripped the Obamacare provision from the CR, and brought it up for a vote. The Senate passed it, and sent it back to the House. But instead of voting on that, the House is right now in the process of attaching an Obamacare provision to the CR for the third time, the only question is what it will be. A delay in the individual mandate? Yanking health benefits from Congress members and their staffs (the Vitter amendment)? Whatever it turns out to be, it won’t have anything to do with the fact that the current continuing resolution expires tonight.
By the way, the number of waivers granted by Obama for Obamacare numbers in the thousands.
And your point is what? That these waivers shouldn’t be given? The GOP state government of Arkansas would disagree; they just got a waiver so that they can use Obamacare Medicaid expansion funds to pay for recipients’ private health coverage, rather than putting them into traditional government-run Medicaid. Are you opposed to giving states that sort of flexibility?
No votes by the Senate to fix Obamcare.
They’ve voted three times in the last few days on proposed “fixes” to Obamacare. Again, what is your point?
They’ve voted three times in the last few days on proposed “fixes” to Obamacare.
They voted on GOP proposed fixes to Obamacare, and voted against them all three times. Just like the Senate has failed to pass a budget and now is unwilling to negotiate with the House.
Are you opposed to giving states that sort of flexibility?
Yes, because that’s not flexibility at all. Arkansas could just as easily not gotten the waiver. It’s up to the Executive, which this one has used the power granted to him to play politics with states. Better flexibility is to do away with the federal law and give states back their own authority. Are you opposed to giving states that sort of flexbility?
They voted on GOP proposed fixes to Obamacare, and voted against them all three times.
Because they weren’t improvements — they would have reduced the number of people covered and/or increased the deficit. And they had nothing to do with the continuing resolution.
“You seem to have read “Obama” where I wrote “Obamacare”.”
I was pointing out the pattern of blame everyone else that is being used on every single issue. Obama is now in his second term as President of the United States of America and used to be called the most powerful man in the world. Perhaps it is time we held him accountable in the manner the position deserves.
“If so, it’d be easy for the GOP to outsmart him. Just let the House vote on the clean continuing resolution that passed the Senate”
You ever ask yourself why the Democrats want and insist on using CR’s instead of passing budgets? They want endless “crisis” after “crisis” in order to use BS fear tactics and dehumanize their political opposition. It is all a distraction from Obama’s dismal handling of the economy, corruption in the federal government, and Democrat’s horrible conduct in the Senate.
How about Democrats get their act together and put forth a serious common sense budget proposal instead of negotiating in bad faith because they don’t want to pass a budget.
You ever ask yourself why the Democrats want and insist on using CR’s instead of passing budgets?
Untrue. The Senate passed a budget earlier this year, and spent the last six months begging the GOP to negotiate over it.
They want endless “crisis” after “crisis” in order to use BS fear tactics and dehumanize their political opposition
The House GOP decided early this year to use this shutdown crisis, and the upcoming debt ceiling crisis, to press its demands.
How about Democrats get their act together and put forth a serious common sense budget proposal
They did — six months ago! Try to keep up.
After five years it must be nice to say the Democrats passed a budget, lol, but they need to pass a serious budget in good faith and not a poison pill. This is just an extension of their previous tactics. They didn’t suddenly see the need for a budget, afterall, their position is that we don’t need a budget.
I love the use of the word “teetering” in the quote. Thinking back to the prior economic apocalypse, aka the sequester…in reality it also failed to come close to the hand-wringing that preceded it, and many federal departments actually found non-essential items they could cut in order to limit or eliminate the number of furlough days originally projected for their employees. Maybe the electorate is comprised of equal numbers of low information voters and short-term-memory challenged voters.
Should a partial government shutdown occur it is likely that the damage will be limited mainly to political damage to the GOP depending on how well the press pinch hits for the Dems, and how well the establishment GOP backstabs the TEA party caucus.
Thinking back to the prior economic apocalypse, aka the sequester
Remember the warnings of a market collapse if sequester was allowed to happen. Sequester happened and the markets soared to record highs soon after it began.
Oversea markets went up. Dow futures are up.
The CBO estimates that the sequester will cost us 0.7% of GDP and 900,000 jobs by the end of next year. Some areas — Indian reservations, medical research — have been particularly hard-hit. It isn’t the end of the world, but it’s an unnecessary self-inflicted wound.
Hospital and medical device companies already laying off people because of ACA. The poor will be particularly hard-hit by the ACA as premium prices jump 99% (or more depending on your state, like say Michigan). It isn’t the end of the world, but it’s an unnecessary self-inflicted wound.
Hospital and medical device companies already laying off people because of ACA
On odd days the right complains that the ACA has no cost-control provisions. On even days the right complains that the ACA is hurting the health care industry by cutting health care spending. Make up your mind!
The poor will be particularly hard-hit by the ACA as premium prices jump 99%
The ACA expands Medicaid to give the poor free coverage. Premiums go to zero.
The ACA expands Medicaid to give the poor free coverage. Premiums go to zero
There is no such thing as a free lunch
There is no such thing as a free lunch
True — in order to pay for things like Medicaid coverage for the poor, the ACA includes a variety of tax hikes and spending cuts. But Leland shouldn’t complain that the ACA raises insurance premiums for the poor when it eliminates them.
But Leland shouldn’t complain that the ACA raises insurance premiums for the poor when it eliminates them.
Wrong again, Jim. The premiums are not eliminated, they still must be paid by someone else.
The ACA expands Medicaid to give the poor free coverage. Premiums go to zero.
Jim, why do you think medical professional should be required to provide free health care?
And I’ve never argued that ACA doesn’t have cost cutting provisions. Like Paul Krugman, I’ve stated all along that for ACA to work it would require rationing of health care.
Wrong again, Jim. The premiums are not eliminated, they still must be paid by someone else.
Wrong again, Jiminator. Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion isn’t funded by premium payments. And even if it were, Leland would still be wrong to complain about the “hard-hit” poor.
On odd days, Jim claims health care is free. On even days, Jim claims there is no free health care.
Obamacare-expanded Medicaid is free to the recipient; I’ve never said otherwise.
Do you acknowledge that you were wrong about the “hard -hit” poor?
Jim, why do you think medical professional should be required to provide free health care?
I don’t.
Jimbo, you can’t even keep your own story straight in the same thread! Here you disagree with my statement “they still must be paid by someone else” yet earlier in this very same thread you state “True — in order to pay for things like Medicaid coverage for the poor, the ACA includes a variety of tax hikes and spending cuts”
It ain’t free, never has been, never will be. Folly to argue otherwise.
I agreed that there was no free lunch. I didn’t say that someone else had to pay the premiums, because there are no premiums to be paid — the program isn’t funded by premium payments, it’s funded out of general federal revenue. Is that difficult to understand?
“Wrong again, Jiminator. Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion isn’t funded by premium payments. And even if it were, Leland would still be wrong to complain about the “hard-hit” poor.”
Wrong again Jim….Jiminator is correct. The premiums have not been eliminated. They’ve just been given another name. It’s called a tax.
The bill must be paid. It’s paid by every taxpayer.
The CBO says a lot of things, Jim. We’ve already spoken about why they aren’t a good source for your claims.
I know that you don’t like non-partisan experts, since they so rarely conform to your view of the world. But expertise, however inconvenient to pre-conceived notions, is still our best guide to reality. The CBO, Moody Analytics, Macroeconomic Advisors — they all say that the sequester is hurting GDP growth and costing jobs. Is there any non-partisan expert who disagrees?
Come on, Jim…you know exactly what Leland means here, and you are being dishonest to claim otherwise. Everyone knows the CBO scores only what they are asked to score, and it is common for both sides of the aisle to set the parameters of their CBO requests in a way that skews the results to support their viewpoint. You can claim that the CBO itself is non-partisan, but the results of their work almost always reflect the political point of view of the requester.
Sorry, I meant Karl.
Everyone knows the CBO scores only what they are asked to score
They were asked to score the sequester — which is current law. It wasn’t a request to score a hypothetical.
set the parameters of their CBO requests in a way that skews the results to support their viewpoint
Did that happen in this case? How could it?
You and Karl have no substantive beef with the CBO analysis (or that of Moody’s, or Macroeconomic Advisers, or the Fed, or …), you just don’t like their conclusion, so you try to shoot the messenger.
Apparently all this shutdown stuff being a crisis is over blown.
Hey, why not? The whole “shutddown” business is staged anyway. The GOP intends to lose so they can persuade their voters that they have no choice but to go along with Obamacare.
If the House Republicans were serious, they would send a stream of spending bills to the Senate day and night to fund anything and everything except Obamacare. They would let Harry Reid squash spending for each and every little thing, keeping his petulant childish behavior in the spotlight 24/7.
In other words, they would pass budgets, legislation which authorizes the spending on some things but not other things, something that has been missing from DC for many years now.
But they won’t. Instead, we’ll get a week of purely symbolic shutdown after which they’ll relent, fund Obamacare and their poll numbers will crater. Then they’ll argue how horrible it is to oppose any public spending and the only remedy is exponential funding forever, amen.
they would send a stream of spending bills to the Senate day and night to fund anything and everything except Obamacare
That isn’t how it works. Federal spending comes in two flavors, mandatory and discretionary. Mandatory spending is like when you put your electric bill (say) on AutoPay; the bill gets paid without any further action on your part. Discretionary spending is like bills that you take specific action to pay.
Discretionary spending requires explicit action by Congress; the government is shut down today because Congress didn’t pass a bill to authorize more discretionary spending. But mandatory spending goes on until Congress passes (and the President signs, or has his veto overridden) a law to stop it.
Virtually all of Obamacare is mandatory spending. So are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Congress does not have to do anything for that spending to happen; instead, Congress has to do something to stop it from happening.
after which they’ll relent, fund Obamacare
They don’t have to do anything to fund Obamacare — it’s already funded.
Why do Republicans never seem to come out ahead politically when they go toe-to-toe with the Democrats?
Maybe because the GOP’s priorities aren’t as broadly popular as the Dems’?
With the government teetering on the brink of partial shutdown, congressional Republicans vowed Sunday to keep using an otherwise routine federal funding bill to try to attack the president’s health care law.
That’s a fair summary. Obamacare doesn’t have anything to do with the expiration of the continuing resolution, and the GOP deserves 100% of the responsibility for tying the two together.
“Why do Republicans never seem to come out ahead politically when they go toe-to-toe with the Democrats?
Maybe because the GOP’s priorities aren’t as broadly popular as the Dems’?”
You don’t think Democrat party media has any influence? Guess those billions of dollars Obama spent on commercials had no effect. Media does have an effect.
“That’s a fair summary. Obamacare doesn’t have anything to do with…”
Does it matter what comes next in the sentence? On every single issue it is always the same line about Obama having nothing to do with it. Syria? Obama had nothing to do with it. Status of forces agreement in Iraq? Nothing with Obama. Unemployment? Look someplace else not at Obama. And on and on. Well, Obama does have something to do with what is going on with a potential shutdown, especially since Obama wants the shutdown to take place.
But nice dogma, I guess.
You seem to have read “Obama” where I wrote “Obamacare”.
To put it more clearly: the Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with the expiration of the continuing resolution. The Republicans are the ones tying them together.
Obama wants the shutdown to take place
If so, it’d be easy for the GOP to outsmart him. Just let the House vote on the clean continuing resolution that passed the Senate — it would pass, and then Obama would either have to sign it, or take the blame for a shutdown. Why isn’t Boehner doing that?
the Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with the expiration of the continuing resolution.
Not according to Harry Reid, who said he wouldn’t even allow the Continuing resolution to come to a vote because it included a delay in Obamacare implementation half of which Obama claims to want. By the way, the number of waivers granted by Obama for Obamacare numbers in the thousands. Thousands of waivers yet only 42 votes to repeal Obamacare. No votes by the Senate to fix Obamcare.
Harry Reid, who said he wouldn’t even allow the Continuing resolution to come to a vote because it included a delay in Obamacare implementation
No, Reid stripped the Obamacare provision from the CR, and brought it up for a vote. The Senate passed it, and sent it back to the House. But instead of voting on that, the House is right now in the process of attaching an Obamacare provision to the CR for the third time, the only question is what it will be. A delay in the individual mandate? Yanking health benefits from Congress members and their staffs (the Vitter amendment)? Whatever it turns out to be, it won’t have anything to do with the fact that the current continuing resolution expires tonight.
By the way, the number of waivers granted by Obama for Obamacare numbers in the thousands.
And your point is what? That these waivers shouldn’t be given? The GOP state government of Arkansas would disagree; they just got a waiver so that they can use Obamacare Medicaid expansion funds to pay for recipients’ private health coverage, rather than putting them into traditional government-run Medicaid. Are you opposed to giving states that sort of flexibility?
No votes by the Senate to fix Obamcare.
They’ve voted three times in the last few days on proposed “fixes” to Obamacare. Again, what is your point?
They’ve voted three times in the last few days on proposed “fixes” to Obamacare.
They voted on GOP proposed fixes to Obamacare, and voted against them all three times. Just like the Senate has failed to pass a budget and now is unwilling to negotiate with the House.
Are you opposed to giving states that sort of flexibility?
Yes, because that’s not flexibility at all. Arkansas could just as easily not gotten the waiver. It’s up to the Executive, which this one has used the power granted to him to play politics with states. Better flexibility is to do away with the federal law and give states back their own authority. Are you opposed to giving states that sort of flexbility?
They voted on GOP proposed fixes to Obamacare, and voted against them all three times.
Because they weren’t improvements — they would have reduced the number of people covered and/or increased the deficit. And they had nothing to do with the continuing resolution.
“You seem to have read “Obama” where I wrote “Obamacare”.”
I was pointing out the pattern of blame everyone else that is being used on every single issue. Obama is now in his second term as President of the United States of America and used to be called the most powerful man in the world. Perhaps it is time we held him accountable in the manner the position deserves.
“If so, it’d be easy for the GOP to outsmart him. Just let the House vote on the clean continuing resolution that passed the Senate”
You ever ask yourself why the Democrats want and insist on using CR’s instead of passing budgets? They want endless “crisis” after “crisis” in order to use BS fear tactics and dehumanize their political opposition. It is all a distraction from Obama’s dismal handling of the economy, corruption in the federal government, and Democrat’s horrible conduct in the Senate.
How about Democrats get their act together and put forth a serious common sense budget proposal instead of negotiating in bad faith because they don’t want to pass a budget.
You ever ask yourself why the Democrats want and insist on using CR’s instead of passing budgets?
Untrue. The Senate passed a budget earlier this year, and spent the last six months begging the GOP to negotiate over it.
They want endless “crisis” after “crisis” in order to use BS fear tactics and dehumanize their political opposition
The House GOP decided early this year to use this shutdown crisis, and the upcoming debt ceiling crisis, to press its demands.
How about Democrats get their act together and put forth a serious common sense budget proposal
They did — six months ago! Try to keep up.
After five years it must be nice to say the Democrats passed a budget, lol, but they need to pass a serious budget in good faith and not a poison pill. This is just an extension of their previous tactics. They didn’t suddenly see the need for a budget, afterall, their position is that we don’t need a budget.
I love the use of the word “teetering” in the quote. Thinking back to the prior economic apocalypse, aka the sequester…in reality it also failed to come close to the hand-wringing that preceded it, and many federal departments actually found non-essential items they could cut in order to limit or eliminate the number of furlough days originally projected for their employees. Maybe the electorate is comprised of equal numbers of low information voters and short-term-memory challenged voters.
Should a partial government shutdown occur it is likely that the damage will be limited mainly to political damage to the GOP depending on how well the press pinch hits for the Dems, and how well the establishment GOP backstabs the TEA party caucus.
Thinking back to the prior economic apocalypse, aka the sequester
Remember the warnings of a market collapse if sequester was allowed to happen. Sequester happened and the markets soared to record highs soon after it began.
Oversea markets went up. Dow futures are up.
The CBO estimates that the sequester will cost us 0.7% of GDP and 900,000 jobs by the end of next year. Some areas — Indian reservations, medical research — have been particularly hard-hit. It isn’t the end of the world, but it’s an unnecessary self-inflicted wound.
Hospital and medical device companies already laying off people because of ACA. The poor will be particularly hard-hit by the ACA as premium prices jump 99% (or more depending on your state, like say Michigan). It isn’t the end of the world, but it’s an unnecessary self-inflicted wound.
Hospital and medical device companies already laying off people because of ACA
On odd days the right complains that the ACA has no cost-control provisions. On even days the right complains that the ACA is hurting the health care industry by cutting health care spending. Make up your mind!
The poor will be particularly hard-hit by the ACA as premium prices jump 99%
The ACA expands Medicaid to give the poor free coverage. Premiums go to zero.
The ACA expands Medicaid to give the poor free coverage. Premiums go to zero
There is no such thing as a free lunch
There is no such thing as a free lunch
True — in order to pay for things like Medicaid coverage for the poor, the ACA includes a variety of tax hikes and spending cuts. But Leland shouldn’t complain that the ACA raises insurance premiums for the poor when it eliminates them.
But Leland shouldn’t complain that the ACA raises insurance premiums for the poor when it eliminates them.
Wrong again, Jim. The premiums are not eliminated, they still must be paid by someone else.
The ACA expands Medicaid to give the poor free coverage. Premiums go to zero.
On odd days, Jim claims health care is free. On even days, Jim claims there is no free health care.
Jim, why do you think medical professional should be required to provide free health care?
And I’ve never argued that ACA doesn’t have cost cutting provisions. Like Paul Krugman, I’ve stated all along that for ACA to work it would require rationing of health care.
Wrong again, Jim. The premiums are not eliminated, they still must be paid by someone else.
Wrong again, Jiminator. Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion isn’t funded by premium payments. And even if it were, Leland would still be wrong to complain about the “hard-hit” poor.
On odd days, Jim claims health care is free. On even days, Jim claims there is no free health care.
Obamacare-expanded Medicaid is free to the recipient; I’ve never said otherwise.
Do you acknowledge that you were wrong about the “hard -hit” poor?
Jim, why do you think medical professional should be required to provide free health care?
I don’t.
Jimbo, you can’t even keep your own story straight in the same thread! Here you disagree with my statement “they still must be paid by someone else” yet earlier in this very same thread you state “True — in order to pay for things like Medicaid coverage for the poor, the ACA includes a variety of tax hikes and spending cuts”
It ain’t free, never has been, never will be. Folly to argue otherwise.
I agreed that there was no free lunch. I didn’t say that someone else had to pay the premiums, because there are no premiums to be paid — the program isn’t funded by premium payments, it’s funded out of general federal revenue. Is that difficult to understand?
“Wrong again, Jiminator. Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion isn’t funded by premium payments. And even if it were, Leland would still be wrong to complain about the “hard-hit” poor.”
Wrong again Jim….Jiminator is correct. The premiums have not been eliminated. They’ve just been given another name. It’s called a tax.
The bill must be paid. It’s paid by every taxpayer.
The CBO says a lot of things, Jim. We’ve already spoken about why they aren’t a good source for your claims.
I know that you don’t like non-partisan experts, since they so rarely conform to your view of the world. But expertise, however inconvenient to pre-conceived notions, is still our best guide to reality. The CBO, Moody Analytics, Macroeconomic Advisors — they all say that the sequester is hurting GDP growth and costing jobs. Is there any non-partisan expert who disagrees?
Come on, Jim…you know exactly what Leland means here, and you are being dishonest to claim otherwise. Everyone knows the CBO scores only what they are asked to score, and it is common for both sides of the aisle to set the parameters of their CBO requests in a way that skews the results to support their viewpoint. You can claim that the CBO itself is non-partisan, but the results of their work almost always reflect the political point of view of the requester.
Sorry, I meant Karl.
Everyone knows the CBO scores only what they are asked to score
They were asked to score the sequester — which is current law. It wasn’t a request to score a hypothetical.
set the parameters of their CBO requests in a way that skews the results to support their viewpoint
Did that happen in this case? How could it?
You and Karl have no substantive beef with the CBO analysis (or that of Moody’s, or Macroeconomic Advisers, or the Fed, or …), you just don’t like their conclusion, so you try to shoot the messenger.
Hey, Obama set a new record this weekend!
Apparently all this shutdown stuff being a crisis is over blown.
Hey, why not? The whole “shutddown” business is staged anyway. The GOP intends to lose so they can persuade their voters that they have no choice but to go along with Obamacare.
If the House Republicans were serious, they would send a stream of spending bills to the Senate day and night to fund anything and everything except Obamacare. They would let Harry Reid squash spending for each and every little thing, keeping his petulant childish behavior in the spotlight 24/7.
In other words, they would pass budgets, legislation which authorizes the spending on some things but not other things, something that has been missing from DC for many years now.
But they won’t. Instead, we’ll get a week of purely symbolic shutdown after which they’ll relent, fund Obamacare and their poll numbers will crater. Then they’ll argue how horrible it is to oppose any public spending and the only remedy is exponential funding forever, amen.
they would send a stream of spending bills to the Senate day and night to fund anything and everything except Obamacare
That isn’t how it works. Federal spending comes in two flavors, mandatory and discretionary. Mandatory spending is like when you put your electric bill (say) on AutoPay; the bill gets paid without any further action on your part. Discretionary spending is like bills that you take specific action to pay.
Discretionary spending requires explicit action by Congress; the government is shut down today because Congress didn’t pass a bill to authorize more discretionary spending. But mandatory spending goes on until Congress passes (and the President signs, or has his veto overridden) a law to stop it.
Virtually all of Obamacare is mandatory spending. So are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Congress does not have to do anything for that spending to happen; instead, Congress has to do something to stop it from happening.
after which they’ll relent, fund Obamacare
They don’t have to do anything to fund Obamacare — it’s already funded.