US Government shutdown

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote:The requirement to compromise should be applied to both sides. The Administration won't compromise at all. He wants to change the law to dely implementation of parts of the ACA. Fine. Yet, I see no bill in congress detailing the changes he wishes to make. If the law is written in such a way as to give him complete control of how health care is to be administered without even advice and consent of Congress, then it needs to be repealed. If the ACA isn't written that way, then the administration cannot change the law without having the changes passed by Congress.

FWIW, this discusses the issue.

He is willing to delay the Business penalties in the aCA but not the individual manadate. Why not if they entire program isn't ready for implementation? Why can he not compromise and delay the individual mandate?

Supposedly, the delay was due to issues employers had with the reporting requirements, which don't apply to individuals.

The Repubs have already allowed the Administration to avoid getting a budget approved. No budget was approved even when the House and Senate were controlled by the dems. That there was no budget has allowed the emergency spending levels inflated by TARP and the other emergency measures after the financial crisis to become baseline spending levels in the Continuing Resolutions. That is compromise for these fiscally conservative groups. Yet, the dems refuse to acknowledge that demand that those groups accept all the dems demands.

In the context of these types of discussions compromise means that those that disagree with the Administration need to begin agreeing or they are not compromising. Sorry but that doesn't sound like compromise to me.

As I understand, the "clean" CR is already a Democratic compromise, as it involves considerable cuts to the budget set forth by the administration (I can't find the reference now, but IIRC it was something on the order of $200 billion).

And honestly, in the Democrats' shoes would you yield on this point? They're being asked to defund a piece of legislation which is key to them in return for minor gains and the prospect of having a new fight (with another shutdown threat) in 6 weeks when the CR expires and right after that again for the debt ceiling. And then they get to repeat it all over again when the delayed date for the ACA implementation comes around (don't forget, the Republicans aren't trying to delay the ACA to improve it or solve problems - they've been quite open about their intention to get it stricken down one way or another. I might agree that the Democrats whould consider a delay if the Republicans placed something major on the table, but they haven't done that.

That we are even dicsussing the CRs as a baseline is a concession. The current CR is built on the extra 800 billion of TARP and war time defense expenditures at the end of Bush II. TARP was intended as a temporary measure and the war time spending is being redirected absent a budget to prevent that, both turned into a repeating baseline expenditure. As soon as those expenditures are inserted in a budget, they cannot be justified as on going programs. Yet, they are assumed as such in the CRs.

You want the ACA, get rid of the amount of dollars in expenditures which replaced the TARP program and war time military spending. Those are the types of concessions one expects to be discussed in a budget process. They aren't being discussed or even on the table. Heck, the entire budget process is being avoided like the plague by the Administration for just these reasons.

As for getting rid of a program that harms me politically, if it is not helping and not wanted by most of my constituents, then yes I would. Once elected my job is to legislate and govern not play pure politics. The problem is that our spending levels are being made for political reasons just as you cite here. That is not good at all.

My apologies if massive snipage causes lost of context. I really don't do well with all the split quoting if the forum's.

So the fact of many of those Representatives were elected to get the "budget" balanced only cut 200 billion(if that number is accurate I don't know) from a projected budget of with a ~trillion dollar deficit doesn't count as a compromise.

Honestly if you were elected on a promise to get run away spending under control how do you sell that to your electorate. Or that you promised to work to repeal the health insurance reform.

I am thinking said people are going to elect another Representative to do the job they elected you for and you failed at it. Just like they did you.

If health insurance reform was so popular then getting it fixed is no issue the people elected would still be all for it, IF they represented the people who elected them.

There is a reason that monstrosity of a 4,000 page bill, that couldn't even be read before it was voted, on wouldn't get through now. And why a desperate President and Senate Majority Leader don't want to go back and do that. The people don't want that actual legislation being enacted. Much less selectively enacted.

But sure "Lucy hold that football again, I trust you."

Enjoy,
T2M

PS: Probably shouldn't even post this as PeterZ did better than I, but dang I spent a bunch of effort on it.

Eyal wrote:As I understand, the "clean" CR is already a Democratic compromise, as it involves considerable cuts to the budget set forth by the administration (I can't find the reference now, but IIRC it was something on the order of $200 billion).

And honestly, in the Democrats' shoes would you yield on this point? They're being asked to defund a piece of legislation which is key to them in return for minor gains and the prospect of having a new fight (with another shutdown threat) in 6 weeks when the CR expires and right after that again for the debt ceiling. And then they get to repeat it all over again when the delayed date for the ACA implementation comes around (don't forget, the Republicans aren't trying to delay the ACA to improve it or solve problems - they've been quite open about their intention to get it stricken down one way or another. I might agree that the Democrats whould consider a delay if the Republicans placed something major on the table, but they haven't done that.

First of all, as far as polls are concerned, it seemsonly a third of Americans want the ACA repealed

And you miss my point regarding politics. I don't mean harm politically as in failing to get reelected, I mean as in the ability to govern. If the Democrats prove themselves willing to cave on what is for them a keystone piece of legislation for so little in return, such a keystone (for them) legislation, they could certainly be expected to cave on smaller things. They'd essentially be signalling their willingness to agree to anything the Republicans demand, even though the latter only hold the House.

PeterZ wrote:That we are even dicsussing the CRs as a baseline is a concession. The current CR is built on the extra 800 billion of TARP and war time defense expenditures at the end of Bush II. TARP was intended as a temporary measure and the war time spending is being redirected absent a budget to prevent that, both turned into a repeating baseline expenditure. As soon as those expenditures are inserted in a budget, they cannot be justified as on going programs. Yet, they are assumed as such in the CRs.

You want the ACA, get rid of the amount of dollars in expenditures which replaced the TARP program and war time military spending. Those are the types of concessions one expects to be discussed in a budget process. They aren't being discussed or even on the table. Heck, the entire budget process is being avoided like the plague by the Administration for just these reasons.

As for getting rid of a program that harms me politically, if it is not helping and not wanted by most of my constituents, then yes I would. Once elected my job is to legislate and govern not play pure politics. The problem is that our spending levels are being made for political reasons just as you cite here. That is not good at all.

Ah so the the Republicans caving from the early 90's till now is fine. But we can't have the Democrats doing it.

After all we are now seeing what happened to the Republican Party for doing so.

I understand now, So when is that spending cut from The President Bush's term going to show up. "Read my lips no new taxes" sound familiar.

When does Nebraska get all the special breaks that were first written into this popular law. Oh I forgot they were taken out again after it was passed or something.

Wonderful,
T2M

PS just found another reason to hate embeded links a whole bunch of gibberish to sort through while trying to snip. not that I follow any of them anyway but makes a coherent reply that much more difficult.

Eyal wrote:First of all, as far as polls are concerned, it seemsonly a third of Americans want the ACA repealed

And you miss my point regarding politics. I don't mean harm politically as in failing to get reelected, I mean as in the ability to govern. If the Democrats prove themselves willing to cave on what is for them a keystone piece of legislation for so little in return, such a keystone (for them) legislation, they could certainly be expected to cave on smaller things. They'd essentially be signalling their willingness to agree to anything the Republicans demand, even though the latter only hold the House.

Eyal wrote:First of all, as far as polls are concerned, it seemsonly a third of Americans want the ACA repealed

And you miss my point regarding politics. I don't mean harm politically as in failing to get reelected, I mean as in the ability to govern. If the Democrats prove themselves willing to cave on what is for them a keystone piece of legislation for so little in return, such a keystone (for them) legislation, they could certainly be expected to cave on smaller things. They'd essentially be signalling their willingness to agree to anything the Republicans demand, even though the latter only hold the House.

But less than 30% actually support it if you call it Obama Care and Less than a quarter support it if you call it by its name, the Affrodable Care Act. Either way less than 30% actively support this law. Please don't act as if this was a mandate.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/27/poll-more-oppose-obamacare-than-affordable-care-act/

Second, I would call $800 BILLION per year for 5 years now a major concession. That only the amount of TARP that was only approved for 1 year as a extraordinary measure after the financial crisis but morphed into the baseline expenditures as part of the "Clean" CRs. The Administration was generous enough to offer back $200 billion of that amount which bypassed the budghet process. You call that a concession?

Seriously, the dems used a crisis to increase spending to extraordinary levels (with Repub backing true) and then miss-used the CR when they had majorities in both houses of Congress to make that one time increase permanent without debate. Just accepting the current level of expenditure is a HUGE concession. And still dems refuse to acknowledge this and worse, they blame their opponents when those opponents use legal methods to try to achieve their goals.

So don't cave on Obama Care, but give back that $800 billion annual spending. Make that offer and the Repunlicans will give in quickly. That won't happen because the current dems in office have invested too much to secure those funds without paying a political cost of actually voting to continue spending by $800 Billion annually.

Will you personally endorse that compromise?

PeterZ wrote:Second, I would call $800 BILLION per year for 5 years now a major concession. That only the amount of TARP that was only approved for 1 year as a extraordinary measure after the financial crisis but morphed into the baseline expenditures as part of the "Clean" CRs. The Administration was generous enough to offer back $200 billion of that amount which bypassed the budghet process. You call that a concession?

Seriously, the dems used a crisis to increase spending to extraordinary levels (with Repub backing true) and then miss-used the CR when they had majorities in both houses of Congress to make that one time increase permanent without debate. Just accepting the current level of expenditure is a HUGE concession. And still dems refuse to acknowledge this and worse, they blame their opponents when those opponents use legal methods to try to achieve their goals.

So don't cave on Obama Care, but give back that $800 billion annual spending. Make that offer and the Repunlicans will give in quickly. That won't happen because the current dems in office have invested too much to secure those funds without paying a political cost of actually voting to continue spending by $800 Billion annually.

Will you personally endorse that compromise?

So there haven't been any spending cuts since then? Could have fooled me.

You're not wrong that budget cuts need to happen and pretty much across the board. I just don't think having a massive budget crisis every few months is the best way to get it done. Of course with the current crop of hyperpartisan politicians in Washington (on both sides), that's probably the only way they know how to do things.

Of course, neither side wants to address the causes of the hyperpartisanship (closed primaries, gerrymandering, and current campaign finance rules).

Starsaber wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Second, I would call $800 BILLION per year for 5 years now a major concession. That only the amount of TARP that was only approved for 1 year as a extraordinary measure after the financial crisis but morphed into the baseline expenditures as part of the "Clean" CRs. The Administration was generous enough to offer back $200 billion of that amount which bypassed the budghet process. You call that a concession?

Seriously, the dems used a crisis to increase spending to extraordinary levels (with Repub backing true) and then miss-used the CR when they had majorities in both houses of Congress to make that one time increase permanent without debate. Just accepting the current level of expenditure is a HUGE concession. And still dems refuse to acknowledge this and worse, they blame their opponents when those opponents use legal methods to try to achieve their goals.

So don't cave on Obama Care, but give back that $800 billion annual spending. Make that offer and the Repunlicans will give in quickly. That won't happen because the current dems in office have invested too much to secure those funds without paying a political cost of actually voting to continue spending by $800 Billion annually.

Will you personally endorse that compromise?

So there haven't been any spending cuts since then? Could have fooled me.

You're not wrong that budget cuts need to happen and pretty much across the board. I just don't think having a massive budget crisis every few months is the best way to get it done. Of course with the current crop of hyperpartisan politicians in Washington (on both sides), that's probably the only way they know how to do things.

Of course, neither side wants to address the causes of the hyperpartisanship (closed primaries, gerrymandering, and current campaign finance rules).

Were you fooled? I don't see how. Even the sequester was a reduction in spending growth.

That aside, I have no issues at all with the remainder of your post.

Reckon you folk may find the following an interesting perspective: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/roots-go ... t-shutdown

And BTW, from where I'm sitting, the majority of the debate seems to be about changing the speed of the debt increase, rather that starting to pay it off. Am I wrong about that?

Invictus wrote:Reckon you folk may find the following an interesting perspective: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/roots-go ... t-shutdown

And BTW, from where I'm sitting, the majority of the debate seems to be about changing the speed of the debt increase, rather that starting to pay it off. Am I wrong about that?

Nope.

Invictus wrote:Reckon you folk may find the following an interesting perspective: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/roots-go ... t-shutdown

And BTW, from where I'm sitting, the majority of the debate seems to be about changing the speed of the debt increase, rather that starting to pay it off. Am I wrong about that?

Thank you for the link. Very thought provoking.

Thanks Again,
T2M