Shutdown chokes Washington; political standoff deepens

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -2

    TumbleDry

    Thousands of federal workers trekked into town only to clear their desks and to be told they were not “essential” to the running of the US government machine.

    Question... Why are they employed then?

  • 5

    smithinjapan

    “They have shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable healthcare to millions of Americans.”

    Exactly. Worse yet, some of the key points of Obama's health care plan were initially suggested by Republicans in the past. The Republicans just like to say 'no' when they are not in power. If any further proof were needed, when was the last shut down? Ah, yes, when Republicans couldn't stop whining over Clinton's policies.

  • 8

    Farmboy

    Obamacare already passed both houses of Congress sometime ago, and is already happening, like it or not. Now, if you want to save money, cut the salaries and benefits of anyone in Congress who voted for a shutdown, and divide it up among the people who aren't getting paid. Let them put their money where their mouth is and see how long the shutdown lasts.

  • 5

    JTDanMan

    The Republicans are such dopes. America most certainly does not want them to do this. The only thing they are going to accomplish is make the chance of losing some of their gerrymandered seats next year.

    And so, overall, its a good thing. Sooner or later, the ass-hat Bagger Republicans needed to be stopped. Now is the time, and they chose the wrong battle, because, well, y'know, they are ass-hats.

  • -2

    sfjp330

    Obamacare that says that full time work is now 30 hours. This is resulting in a lot of employers cutting back hours and hiring nothing but part-timers. According to some unions, sounds the death sentence for the 40 hour work week and the total erosion of the middle class.

  • -2

    Lizz

    Thousands of federal workers trekked into town only to clear their desks and to be told they were not “essential” to the running of the US government machine.


    If only they had been park rangers, police, tour guides or any other petty bureaucrat there would have been an obvious duty -- putting closed signs up and placing barricades around our monuments to keep wheelchair bound WW2 vets away from the WW2 memorial.

  • 5

    Farmboy

    Obamacare that says that full time work is now 30 hours. This is resulting in a lot of employers cutting back hours and hiring nothing but part-timers.

    That doesn't seem to be a big problem.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/companies-full-time-hiring-obamacare_n_3913313.html

  • -1

    MarkG

    I prefer " replace them all" . And not with all lawyers!

  • -1

    kwatt

    Obama's healthcare seems to be beautiful for all people. I wonder why Republicans deny it. Americans will not help Americans each other. If so, America seems to be so cruel for people as if they hate to help each other.

  • -9

    MarkG

    Totally untrue kwatt! Americans are among of the most generous in the world. Look at adoption rates, look at global generosity, look at when communities come together in tragedy, look at volunteerism, look at what individuals do everyday.

    Obama's healthcare is costly, will likely be inefficient and requires uninsured working class to purchase insurance. Even if the struggle financially today. Just more tomorrow. We don't like a senate and congress who opt out and not to the working class level of consequence.

    The money train will stop. Fact! Its entirely unsustainable. When and how much damage is the mystery to those who see the reality.

  • -8

    JeanValJean

    Big yawn. Non-essential workers, national parks,

  • 1

    JTDanMan

    Kwatt

    Right. Kind of.

    Republicans hate to help people. Republicans hate people.

    Republicans hate America.

    That is why they are doing their level best to destroy it.

  • -7

    MarkG

    More like public and visual impact workers to display the result. Just a game play. Untold billions of waste still intact!

  • 2

    JTDanMan

    Oh yeah. This is not a "political standoff." This is a hostage crisis.

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    It amazes me that one person who has a hospital bill can start a charity and lots of people are willing to donate to cover that bill. Now with an actual decent national healthcare plan in motion (sort of) why can't these same people be allowed to donate whatever they choose to towards that national healthcare plan? We can already donate funds to a political party or some other section of the government during tax season.

  • -6

    MarkG

    To JTDanMan-

    I see violent labor union supporters (Democrat majority) displaying the hate. Yet you claim Republicans as hating people. How so?

  • 3

    JTDanMan

    You see violent labor unions? Where? In your Mirror of Galadriel?

  • -10

    MarkG

    Watch a protest. Civilized cooperation? No, vial hate speech.

  • -3

    falseflagsteve

    But they had enough money to send ships and help to Al Quida on Syria and also to attack them. Typical America.

  • -1

    JTDanMan

    So, now it is hate speech? That is not quite violent, now is it. No, it ain't.

    Now, hate speech you say? Uh, I've been to plenty of labor union events. So, yeah, give me an example of your 'hate speech.'

  • 1

    noriyosan73

    It is a farce! Punish the people who pay the taxes but keep the paychecks coming to Congress members. Pandas, asteroid watch, etc. are cut. "It is all about me." Congress is not interested in the working people. Congress is going to pay the price if people will just vote for anyone except the incumbent in the next election. That won't happen because "It is those guys in Congress who are the problem," but my representative is doing a great job - i.e. bringing federal money to my district. This is a good lesson for the next election in Japan, too.

  • -6

    Wolfpack

    Now with an actual decent national healthcare plan in motion (sort of) why can't these same people be allowed to donate whatever they choose to towards that national healthcare plan?

    Anyone that wants to start up a health care fund for the needy is free to do so. In fact, many organizations already do so (ie. Shriners). The Democrat party could start one tomorrow and end this un-American monstrosity. The problems start when choice is removed from the equation. ObamaCare tells people how to spend their money and forces them to spend it on a hugely wasteful bureaucratic and heavily regulated failure in the making. Like the other large social policies in the US which are already scheduled to run out of money in the next decade or two - ObamaCare will make it impossible to stop America's $17 trillion debt from becoming $25 trillion then $50 trillion, etc. Americans as the most generous people on the planet. Just allow them them to support what is of most importance to them - whether it be a general health care fund for the poor, helping children get adopted, supporting cures for diseases or whatever.

    Those that value Americans traditions of charity and freedom will always and forever oppose ObamaCare. It's a disaster for America as the current state of the economy will attest.

  • 2

    JTDanMan

    Anyhoos,

    The Republicans are terified of Obamacare. And they should be.

    Once Americans realize how its not the end of the world (as the right-wing slime machine has bleated for years), and even pretty good, they will like it.

    And then we'll be one more step closer to a single-payer.

  • 1

    kwatt

    Obama's healthcare is costly, will likely be inefficient and requires uninsured working class to purchase insurance. Even if the struggle financially today. Just more tomorrow. We don't like a senate and congress who opt out and not to the working class level of consequence

    Obama's healthcare program has just started. It would cost more for it and ask some money from all people. As long as so many poor people of one third its population can't go to hospital, It seems they definitely would need it for their life. A big question is which one is much more important life or money for the country? In the past more poorer people than richer had gone to wars for America. It seems to be reasonable that richer should help poorer for America.

  • 1

    noriyosan73

    The Japanese will never understand the controversy in USA. The insurance system in Japan is established and well used. Compare prices: Removal of a gall bladder -$7000, including medications, meals and hospital care in Japan. In the USA $70000+ just for the hospital. Why? Because more than half the cost paid by the insurance company goes to the hospital to pay for uninsured people.

  • -5

    sangetsu03

    “They have shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable healthcare to millions of Americans.”

    It was the government subsidizing of healthcare that put the cost out of reach for millions of Americans in the first place.

    I am no fan of republicans or democrats, but Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster. First, it is not free. It will cost every household in America about $238 per month. As such, it is the largest tax increase in American history.

    Second, Obamacare was passed when Obama's party controlled both houses of congress. It was not popular with the people at the time, and it was primarily on a promies to repeal Obamacare that the republicans gained control of the house of representantatives. Now that they have control, they are merely doing what they said what they would do. So far this is the only part of the process which has been done in a democratic fashion.

    The problem with Obamacare is that it is not "universal" healthcare. It is a piecemeal program with mountains of bureaucracy, pork projects, confusing programs, and a high pricetag. There is little about it to like. I would prefer a simple, single-payer system that provides services with an minimum of forms and cost. Obamacare is a nightmare to healthcare providers and employers, and it is becoming a nightmare for it's future cusomers. 2/3 of young Americans don't even know that they are required to enroll in or purchase an insurance plan or face paying a fine. Obamacre is a first-class mess which is even more complicated than the nonsense we have to go through to file tax returns every year.

    This multi-who-knows-how-many-billions-of-dollars-it-will-cost program was a debacle from the moment it was conceived, and fighitng against it is the only sensible thing republicans have done recently.

  • -6

    Octagon

    USA constitution allowed US government to borrow up to more than 16 trillions. However that limit has already exceeded now. Back in 2011, US congress was very relutant to increase the borrowing limit. It is understandable that increasing the debt mountain again and again will become the incureable cancer for US citizens and politicians.

    In my opinion, US should default the debt sooner than later instead of keep borrowing. Short term pain is better than chronic long term agony. If not shutdown will come and come again. Obamacare is getting about the votes from illegal immigrants and young pregnant women who have no concern and responsibilty for the US budget. No nation on earth can afford to foot the such a huge bill while trade and budget deficit are sky rocketting.

    It is a right moment for US for not repaying any cent of debt. Of course it will be hard to borrow more. There is no point for borrowing money without the balanced budget and capacity for repaying.

  • 2

    SuperLib

    Wolfpack: Anyone that wants to start up a health care fund for the needy is free to do so. In fact, many organizations already do so (ie. Shriners). The Democrat party could start one tomorrow and end this un-American monstrosity. The problems start when choice is removed from the equation. ObamaCare tells people how to spend their money and forces them to spend it on a hugely wasteful bureaucratic and heavily regulated failure in the making. Like the other large social policies in the US which are already scheduled to run out of money in the next decade or two - ObamaCare will make it impossible to stop America's $17 trillion debt from becoming $25 trillion then $50 trillion, etc.

    Right now patriots like yourself are burning government workers' savings accounts for something you can't have. You lost. Grow up. Move on.

  • 0

    lostrune2

    It's the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party that's holding it up. The other Republicans don't like them for doing this neither.

  • 0

    Triumvere

    A Quinnipiac University poll found voters oppose the shutdown of the government as a way to derail Obamacare by a margin of 72% to 22%.

    Ah. The GOP: true voice of the people.

  • -6

    sangetsu03

    They really are the dying party of old white bigots.

    Really? Which party was it that abolished slavery? It wasn't the democrat party. Which party was it that championed the voting rights act? It wasn't the democrat party. Which party had to overcome a filibuster to pass the civil rights act? It wasn't the democrat party.

    Which party in congress has the highest number of millionaires? It isn't the republican party.

    The fundamental difference is that one party wants the government to help the people, the other wants people to help themselves. People who are helped too often eventually become helpless, and become dependent on their helpers. Those who learn to help themselves become independent. I prefer to be independent.

  • 2

    Madverts

    No honestly, the Republicans are the undisputed party of old white bigots. "My Way Or Suicide" - democracy be damned.

    Vote these domestic, economic terrorists out for good.

  • 4

    Laguna

    In related news, while the household children oppose the vegetable portion of tonight's dinner by a narrow 48 to 46 percent margin, they remain steadfastly opposed to the idea of Mom yelling, "Okay, screw it!", throwing the dinner in the sink, and retreating to her room by an overwhelming margin of 72 to 22 percent.

  • -3

    sangetsu03

    Why? Because more than half the cost paid by the insurance company goes to the hospital to pay for uninsured people.

    This is not true. The reason that the costs have gone up is because most care in America is subsidized by the government. In the 1960's America began to widely implement Medicare and Medicaid. The gevernment has deep pockets, so doctors and hospitals charged the government more and more for services. The government paid. The AMA had a powerful lobby in Washington, and was able to get legislation passed that allowed them to write off losses from patients who couldn't or wouldn't pay, while also lobbying to have the government pay more for various services. This drove up the cost of care, and the cost of private insurance. When the cost of private insurance began to increase to the point that people started dropping out, the HMO's were born. The entire healthcare mess in America lies squarely on the shoulders of the US government.

  • 3

    Laguna

    The gevernment has deep pockets, so doctors and hospitals charged the government more and more for services. The government paid.

    Really?

    According to CMS, for common benefits, Medicare spending rose by an average of 4.3 percent each year between 1997 and 2009, while private insurance premiums grew at a rate of 6.5 percent per year [5]. (See Table 13)

    According to a calculation by the National Academy for Social Insurance, if spending on Medicare rose at the same rate as private insurance premiums during that period, Medicare would have cost an additional $114 billion (or 31.7 percent).

    http://www.google.co.jp/search?rlz=1Y3NDUG_enJP529JP533&aq=0&oq=medicare+vs+p&client=tablet-android-asus-nexus&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&q=medicare+vs+private+health#q=medicare+vs+private+health+costs&start=10

  • 1

    sf2k

    Well the polls say Obama is right so this just kneecaps Republicans even further. The longer it goes the more people will blame the Repub Terrorists. It hopefully would mean that fewer US voters would vote for them. Alas no, because all their efforts in gerrymandered seats ensures more useless government.

    Obama won the election over health care. He has the mandate. Get over it

  • 0

    Farmboy

    The current estimate is that the shutdown will cost 12.5 million dollars an hour. Nice.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/business/money-nothing-government-shutdown-costs-12-5-million-hour-8C11308802

  • -1

    JeffLee

    @kwatt

    "As long as so many poor people of one third its population can't go to hospital,"

    That wasn't and isn't true. Low-income Americans are covered by Medicaid.

    Are you Japanese? A lot of Japanese I talk to have this same misconception: that poor Americans aren't covered. It's actually the middle classes that suffered most under the previous system,

  • -5

    JeanValJean

    " The current estimate is that the shutdown will cost 12.5 million dollars an hour. Nice."

    Then, cut some of that so-called essential spending.

    As Obama said, the Federal Government is the largest employer. That's a clear sign it's TOO BIG.

  • -1

    Lizz

    throwing the dinner in the sink, and retreating to her room by an overwhelming margin of 72 to 22 percent.


    What is a few more distortions ? Thousands of waivers have already been tacked on to the original legislation, not to mention out-of-pocket costs cap delayed. employer mandate and reporting requirements delayed, consumer income and health insurance status verification delayed etc. You can debate the legality of such actions but over half the statutory deadlines have been put off and in reality this is a very different piece of work than what was originally passed.

  • -2

    Laguna

    A lot of Japanese I talk to have this same misconception: that poor Americans aren't covered.

    Actually, you have to be really, really poor to be covered by Medicaid. In other words, if you're not poor when a medical emergency kicks in, you'll be required to spend most all of your assets on your care before you become eligible. Medicaid might save you, but it is no replacement for proper insurance.

  • 0

    Farmboy

    That wasn't and isn't true. Low-income Americans are covered by Medicaid.

    Medicaire coverage varies by state, but in most cases, being poor isn't enough. You need kids, or to be disabled, or to be a senior citizen. Don't buy the garbage you are being fed. If you want to know what Medicaire covers, go to your particular state and search for what it takes to get benifits.

  • 0

    Dylan Otoshiro

    "Let's shut down the government while we decide on how best to spend all of this imaginary money we don't have"

  • 1

    malfupete

    The Tea Party sociopaths who bully the rest of the republican party clearly hate america

  • -3

    Lizz

    Medicaire coverage varies by state, but in most cases, being poor isn't enough.


    Although the guidelines for currently unenrolled eligible patients to sign up are going to be severely relaxed in states accepting Medicare expansion under Obamacare. The feds picking up 90% of the tab for a few years until those same states get stuck with a ballooning tab (leading to a sub prime loan type situation). Of course the governors have to actually balance their budget which is a huge disincentive to get hooked on the easy cash early....Congress and the president not so much.

  • -3

    Serrano

    Obamacare will make health care more costly and less efficient. Congratulations, Democrats.

  • -6

    falseflagsteve

    Land of the free, live the American dream, nyuk nyuk nyuk.

  • -4

    Serrano

    I may be mistaken, perhaps it's not true that Obamacare will make healthcare more costly and less efficient? Really?

  • -4

    JeanValJean

    Many will draw parallels with the epic shutdown of 1995 but there is a key difference: For all his many flaws, at least Bill Clinton was leading the USA. Nowadays Barack Obama may occupy the White House but he looks increasingly like a lame duck caretaker awaiting a professional President who will actually take charge.

    Post shutdown 'blamestorming' is in full swing and Mr Obama is quick to attribute culpability to all around him. However, given that he ultimately decides what gets spent, is there not an element of hypocrisy in his attempts to avoid responsibility? Barak Obama has overseen a lavish spendthrift shift to the left under his Presidency yet feels it is beneath him to actually negotiate a bigger bar tab.

    Congress have dug in their heels over health care changes which are highly questionable. Then again Obamacare needs a serious rethink. Thats not my view: its the opinion of the US trades unions who form Obamas base support. They have realised that heaping costs on employers will result in fewer full-time jobs. That hurts the average citizen but Obamas aloof plutocrats dont care. Equally Congressional Republicans are understandably furious that the President seeks to ignore their democratic mandates while being keen to schmooze with an Iranian President elected via a dubious democratic process. Obama behaves with the demeanour of one who has a massive mandate, yet strip away the hype and he was a relatively narrow victor against two frankly mediocre opponents.

  • -2

    gelendestrasse

    Serrano - according to the GAO Obamacare will increase health care costs. Don't know about the efficiency. There are stories about too few GP doctors to cover the influx of patients. Should take some of the load off the ERs in hospitals though.

    It is an absolute sham that the congress, etc and the unions want (or get) to "avoid" Obamacare. You have to wonder, if Obamacare is so good that it should be forced on the 99%, why do the 1% (and the unions) want out?

    A quote from Max Fisher, paraphrased: "The Oz government shutdown ended differently than the US one will. The Queen's representative simply dismissed the PM and replaced him. The replacement passed the budget that parliament sent up. A week later the Queen's rep dismissed all of parliament and called for new elections. There hasn't been another shutdown in Oz since."

    Too bad we can't fire Obama and all of congress the same way.

  • -2

    sangetsu03

    According to CMS, for common benefits, Medicare spending rose by an average of 4.3 percent each year between 1997 and 2009, while private insurance premiums grew at a rate of 6.5 percent per year [5]. (See Table 13)

    According to a calculation by the National Academy for Social Insurance, if spending on Medicare rose at the same rate as private insurance premiums during that period, Medicare would have cost an additional $114 billion (or 31.7 percent).

    To find the root of the problem you'll have o go back another 30 years, the system was broken long before 1997;

  • 1

    SuperLib

    Lizz: Although the guidelines for currently unenrolled eligible patients to sign up are going to be severely relaxed in states accepting Medicare expansion under Obamacare. The feds picking up 90% of the tab for a few years until those same states get stuck with a ballooning tab (leading to a sub prime loan type situation). Of course the governors have to actually balance their budget which is a huge disincentive to get hooked on the easy cash early....Congress and the president not so much.

    The government will take up 100% of the increased cost for the first 3 years, then 90% of it after that. It's a no-brainer to expand and get coverage for your state's poor. Some patriotic Republican governors have decided that they want to protect the poor from Obamacare and big government intervention so they have opted out of the program. That will create somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-11 million uninsured......which Republicans are now pointing to and saying "Obamacare doesn't even cover all of the uninsured!!!!!" heh Seriously, there's absolutely no reason for states not to take advantage of this deal but since it has the name ObamaCare it is being killed. Just stupid and cruel.

  • -1

    Frungy

    The U.S. politicians sure do have a great sense of drama.

    ... of course anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS public debt would explain to you that this entire song and dance act (and it is an act... one that hurts millions of people by putting them out of work for weeks while it goes on) is totally unnecessary.

    You see, about half of that massive "public debt"? It isn't really debt at all. Companies buy bonds to secure their transactions. The most popular bonds are U.S. dollars. More than half of this "debt" is owned by Chinese companies. Nobody will ever claim it, because it is never redeemed. Imagine you write a cheque for 1 billion dollars. The person you make it out to signs it over to someone else to pay his debts, who then holds onto it to act as a guarantee for a business deal... which then falls through so he signs it over to someone else.. etc, etc. The cheque is never cashed.

    Public debt is like that, a cheque that is never cashed. And that is why this shut-down is pure theater and utterly ridiculous to anyone who understands public debt... because it is totally unnecessary. Public debt is about as real as derivatives... and all of you fell for it.

  • -4

    JeanValJean

    If the president and Harry Reid really believe the Republicans are going to pay a painful political price for the shutdown, they’d better think again.

    Gallup analysts Tuesday releasedpolling data from after the 1995-96 closure that showed “the repercussions of that past conflict ranged from none to short-lived, according to concerns about the U.S. and the political players involved.”

  • 1

    Cliffy

    Hummmm! Shutdown of non-essential services. Should that also include politicians? They are pretty much useless and causing more problems then solving them - kind of like a dead weight.

  • -2

    Lizz

    Seriously, there's absolutely no reason for states not to take advantage of this deal but since it has the name ObamaCare it is being killed. Just stupid and cruel.

    lol. And when that 'commitment' gets caught up in bigger fiscal issues, mark my words the only way to contain the cost of it would be to scale back the health care services that are provided. Actually I think I read the population that is currently eligible for Medicare but not enrolled won’t get the Obamacare 90-100 percent funding rate so states will still be on the hook for around 40% of that total cost. And adding them to the rolls would still cost these states billions of dollars in increased spending.

  • 2

    Laguna

    If the president and Harry Reid really believe the Republicans are going to pay a painful political price for the shutdown, they’d better think again.

    I'm beginning to get into this 'hostage taking' mentality. Obama should insist on a carbon revenue scheme as the price for not vetoing a raise in the debt limit. After all, if Republicans are responsible, they would seek to avoid default, and thus, such a compromise would be a small price to pay.

  • 1

    Lizz

    If only they had been park rangers, police, tour guides or any other petty bureaucrat there would have been an obvious duty -- putting closed signs up and placing barricades around our monuments to keep wheelchair bound WW2 vets away from the WW2 memorial.


    And this morning are they not just installing more barricades but Mounted Police are now protecting the World War 2 Memorial from World War 2 veterans. How much is this costing again ? When I was there the area wasn't even manned. Unreal.

  • -1

    gelendestrasse

    there's absolutely no reason for states not to take advantage of this deal

    Where does the money come from to pay for it? One way or the other it comes from taxes and fees. Agree or disagree that the ACA should be funded but understand that somebody has to pay for it. And heaven knows the insurance companies, big pharma, and for profit hospitals don't want to give up their profits....

  • -2

    JTDanMan

    FYI THis is not about "Obamacare."

    It's about Obama. Stopping Obama.

    The 80 or so knuckle-dragging House Reps don't give a s$&t about Obamacare. Hell, its the Republican plan from the 90s. They hate Obama, because he is half-black Democrat.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Jean: Many will draw parallels with the epic shutdown of 1995 but there is a key difference: For all his many flaws, at least Bill Clinton was leading the USA. Nowadays Barack Obama may occupy the White House but he looks increasingly like a lame duck caretaker awaiting a professional President who will actually take charge.

    Irrelevant to the issue at hand, except for the brief feeling of pleasure you get from typing it.

    Barak Obama has overseen a lavish spendthrift shift to the left under his Presidency yet feels it is beneath him to actually negotiate a bigger bar tab.

    Either you don't know about the collapse in revenues coupled with the social safety nets kicking in, or you do and you're trying to mislead people. I'm guessing it's the latter and it's being fueled because you're emotionally tied to people not liking Obama.

    Congress have dug in their heels over health care changes which are highly questionable.

    What part of it is questionable? The part where it was voted on and became law? The part where the SCOUTS vetted it? The part where voters could have done away with it by electing Romney?

    Then again Obamacare needs a serious rethink. Thats not my view: its the opinion of the US trades unions who form Obamas base support. They have realised that heaping costs on employers will result in fewer full-time jobs.

    Well this is pretty clearly an attempt to mislead. If you know about unions then you know the issue is their special healthcare provisions (something I'm sure the Right would looooove to get rid of....until Obama did it). You want people to think that unions are facing the same thing everyone else is because you are emotional about the whole ACA issue.

    Equally Congressional Republicans are understandably furious that the President seeks to ignore their democratic mandates

    Huh? The one where it says a vast majority of the people don't want to shut down the government over Obamacare? The polls that say Republicans are to blame?

    while being keen to schmooze with an Iranian President

    Wow, the emotions must really be flowing today.

    Obama behaves with the demeanour of one who has a massive mandate, yet strip away the hype and he was a relatively narrow victor against two frankly mediocre opponents.

    So you do understand that Republicans lost....hmm. I guess the real issue is your refusal to actually include that bit of information in your decision-making process.

  • -1

    Lizz

    there's absolutely no reason for states not to take advantage of this deal


    Over half the governors must know something that we don't hard as that is to conceive. If this was truly a no strings attached bailout Obama be damned they would be on it in a second.

  • 0

    JTDanMan

    "Over half the governors" You mean Republican Governors.

    And Y'know what they know? They know the insane right-wing of their party will skewer them if they compromise with a Democrat.

    The problem is not Obama. Its not the Democrats. And it is not 'gridlock'

    Its the Republican Party.

    The Republican Party is broken.

  • -1

    gelendestrasse

    Public debt is like that, a cheque that is never cashed....

    Uh, try explaining that to the Greek government. I think that's what they used to believe too.

    Right now the US dollar is still the currency of choice for international commerce. Used to be the British pound. Might be the Euro (probably not, just ask the Greeks) or the Renminbi in a decade or so. Or it might still be the dollar.

    Might be that the US is too big to fail, but the shutdown is nowhere near that for all the theatrics. In any case an actual US default would really tank the world economy. Are the US politicians that irresponsible and stupid. Possibly.

    Still, at some point all the spending that both Bush and Obama got up too will have to be paid out or defaulted on. The Treasury Dept. can't keep printing money (oops, quantitative easing) forever without inflation kicking in. The pigeons will come home to roost. It will just take longer for it to happen to the US than it did for the Greeks.

  • -1

    Triumvere

    Uh, try explaining that to the Greek government.

    The Greek and US positions are hardly analogous. To indicate otherwise would be to be ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

  • -3

    JeanValJean

    And Y'know what they know? They know the insane left-wing of their party will skewer them if they compromise with a Republican.

    The problem is not only Obama. It's most of the Democrats. And it is not 'gridlock'.

    It's the Democrat-Socialist(National Socialist) Party.

    The Republican Party is trying to restore the nation.

  • -1

    JTDanMan

    It's the Democrat-Socialist(National Socialist) Party.

    Funny. Only 1/4 of America is buying what yer selling. Yet, you think you speak for America.

    Who's the National Socialist....

  • -1

    Farmboy

    I don't know about the Republican Party as a whole, but the Tea Party is full of anarchist idiots who might as well work for an unfriendly foreign government.

  • -1

    JTDanMan

    Farmboy,

    Then why is Boehner carrying their water...?

    There is no "Tea Party." It was a rebranding of right wing Republicans trying to distance themselves from the debaucle know as the Bush presidency.

    Reagan called them the "lunatic fringe" of the Republican party. Well, now they are mainstream. And they have bullied the rest of the party into submission.

    The Republican party is broken,

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    @SuperLib:

    Right now patriots like yourself are burning government workers' savings accounts for something you can't have. You lost. Grow up. Move on.

    Look, all I want is for "patriots" like you to allow me the freedom to be the grown up adult that I am and choose how to live my own life. That doesn't mean I am selfish - I just want to live my life my way - not the way that 51% of the people decide I should live it. If you like "free" health care - fine. Get with all of your Liberal friends and start a free health care system for yourselves. If it works, then more people will join you. However, forcing people to do something for no other reason than that they are alive isn't how the Founders designed the American system of government. ObamaCare is flat out un-American. Rights are granted to each individual - not to the the mob majority that wants to tell others what to do. I will never accept the government telling me how to live my life. You should open your worldview a bit and realize that not everyone wants to micro-manage the lives of other people the way you seem to want to.

  • -4

    Serrano

    JTDantheMan: "Hell, its the Republican plan from the 90s."

    Wow, I didn't know people in Massachussetts were forced to buy health insurance when Romney was governor!

  • -4

    Wolfpack

    @Triumvere:

    The Greek and US positions are hardly analogous. To indicate otherwise would be to be ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

    Oh really? Tell that to the Congressional Budget Office:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0605/CBO-report-US-could-be-the-next-Greece-in-2037

  • 2

    Triumvere

    @Wolfpack

    Greece has A) no control over its own currency, and B) holds debt in foreign currency. That, right off the bat, is a huge difference. There is no question the US needs to get its debt under control. However, "US = Greece because Debt!" is a shallow, misleading argument that does little to nothing to add to the conversation.

    I should, I think, apologize to gelendestrasse for being overly hasty in my response. In retrospect, gelendestrasse's post is quite reasonable for the most part. I just think that the US/Greece comparison has a lot of potential to cloud the argument.

  • -1

    SuperLib

    Wolf, I was inspired by what you said. I think Obama should refuse to sign anything until Republicans roll back their anti-abortion laws.

  • -2

    taiko666

    @SuperLib What has abortion got to do with it?

    @Wolfpack You live in a democracy. If 51% of people want something, the other 49% have to put up with it.

    But anyway, American politics must be completely scr&wed... waging war around the globe seems to get by without a hitch, whereas trying to introduce modern style health care actually *shuts the government down ??? *

    You're all bonkers, on both side of your bitter divide!

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    No - democracy in the US does not allow the mob to rule. Obama is leading a mob of socialists that seek to undermine the rights of individuals for the sake of his backward collectivist ideology. Those concerned about the nations future economic viability will do all they can to defeat Obamas train wreck health care law.

    America is terribly divided. I just wish the Left would not use coercion and instead respect peoples right to choose their own future. ObamaCare does not respect the citizens it is purported to help. It is past time to start reducing the debt and respecting individual rights.

  • 0

    taiko666

    @Wolfpack

    Your choice of words (a "mob" of socialists) is an example of what I mean. As is the American left's tendency for a calling anyone who disagrees with any of their policies a 'neocon' or 'fascist'.

    Socialism isn't evil, it's just a different system to that which you prefer. This insane American hatred of different political systems has cost the USA and the world dearly since WW2.

    The infantile left / right slagging match is bad enough, but to actually shut down the government if the process of democracy is not giving you want you want is beyond crazy. That is mob rule. How far can it go? A military coup?

  • -1

    Saul Schimek

    The U.S. is not a Democracy.

    The Founders had nothing but contempt for a pure Democracy.

    It is far more accurate to say the the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic with democratic tendencies in it's elections.

    Tho given Washington's habit of ignoring the Constitution these days, Fascist Oligarchy (not capitalist) might be a more accurate description now.

  • -2

    sfjp330

    Saul SchimekOct. 05, 2013 - 03:18AM JST The U.S. is not a Democracy. The Founders had nothing but contempt for a pure Democracy.

    In U.S., "Republic" is the proper description of the government, not "democracy." I also don't consider Japan a democracy either. Compare to U.S. with two party system, Japan is pretty much a one party system. How you could have a democracy with only 1 party in control? Yet, Japan is consistently listed as a democratic country. The model does seem much closer to a socialist one.

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    @taiko666:

    Socialism isn't evil, it's just a different system to that which you prefer. This insane American hatred of different political systems has cost the USA and the world dearly since WW2.

    I didn't say socialism is "evil" did I? I don't think I did. However, I will say that Socialism is bad because it removes the rights of individuals to make their own choices. ObamaCare is a good example of this. That said, Socialism can be evil. The history of the 20th century has enumerable examples. If ObamaCare or Socialism in general was voluntary I wouldn't have any problem with it.

  • -2

    A Realist

    Obama is the worst US president of modern times. He has divided the US to a level never seen before.

  • 0

    illsayit

    And then we'll be one more step closer to a single-payer.

    So is this the goal of Obamacare-which in effect would be trying to swipe out families? Seems weird that theyd want to attack families.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all