Budget Fight: Why Don't The Gop De-Fund Medicare / Social Security?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Just pointing out.  No, as far as I'm aware, there has never been a threat to default on the debt. 

 

Just my opinion, but refusing to raise the debt ceiling will not in any way cause the US to refuse to (or to be unable to) pay off outstanding t-bills. 

 

IMO, it very will might trigger economic conditions worse than the Great Depression.  Might very well shake investor confidence enough that the interest on t-bills might skyrocket. 

 

But I do think that that phrase just isn't true. 

 

(And it would be more appropriate in the "The Republicans are holding the debt ceiling hostage" thread, which I figure is due in the next week or two.) 

 

 

I believe there have been statement that the GOP should use the threat of default, actually.  Boehner apparently said it was his preferred tactic to his own caucus.  So, I don't think you are right on the facts.

 

But, this is an aside to the point I was making.  This is the first time I've seen a poll asking some sort of "why" question to those who disapprove of the ACA.  This is an important question.  I disapprove of the ACA because it is not a public option, but I do not think it should be repealed.  Its better than the old system.  

[Bliz]

Exactly.

 

I can't see the logic for the GOP on this one.  I can BARELY see it for the democrats.  

 

I think their logic is, essentially - a temporary shutdown won't be like Newt/Clinton.  It will pass over quickly, opinion will revert to the norm, and there won't be any long-lasting damage.  They can look like "compromisers" to some independents because they floated defunding Obamacare before staking a more middle-ground position of just delaying it one year  like we're doing for employers.  Probably doesn't sound too outrageous to a lot of people, so if there is a shutdown because Obama won't agree to it, then the share of blame they get won't be quite as bad as was being projected in relation to defunding altogether.

[Larry]

Problem with that theory is the people saying that Obamacare goes into effect tomorrow, even if there's a shutdown.

At that instant, continuing to demand that the taxpayers be prevented from seeing the results of a program they've been paying for, for five years, is under a different light.

I'm also curious as to why we aren't seeing one particular talking point. I'd think that if I were advising the Dems, I'd be repeating, over and over . . .

1). Obamacare was fully funded, the day it passed. All projected spending was covered by revenues.

2). The government's been collecting those revenues for five years. The only argument is over whether the taxpayers receive the benefits that they've been paying for.

3). This program has already been delayed, several times, because Republicans kept swearing that they just needed more time.

4). Every time they've received more time, the reaction has been the same: try to kill it.

I think I'd try to create a slogan: the taxpayers have waited long enough.

[chipwhich]

I love how you throw around the term fully funded Larry.

 

When you borrow money every year to operate, nothing is fully funded.

Americans aren't dumb enough to think this thing is paid for.  Well at least some Americans.

[Larry]

I love how you throw around the term fully funded Larry.

When you borrow money every year to operate, nothing is fully funded.

Americans aren't dumb enough to think this thing is paid for. Well at least some Americans.

When revenues cover expenditures, something is fully funded.

(I will avoid pointing out the biggest such example, to avoid a hijack).

Now, granted, the Dems used some accounting tricks. Like the classic "let's collect revenues for 10 years, and only pay out benefits for 6 or so, and that way we can claim that 'over 10 years, projected revenue and spending . .'" I also think it's a safe assumption that they probably tilted the projections the way they wanted.

But all that means is that, every year they delay it, then it's even MORE fully funded.

[chipwhich]

When revenues cover expenditures, something is fully funded.

(I will avoid pointing out the biggest such example, to avoid a hijack).

Now, granted, the Dems used some accounting tricks. Like the classic "let's collect revenues for 10 years, and only pay out benefits for 6 or so, and that way we can claim that 'over 10 years, projected revenue and spending . .'" I also think it's a safe assumption that they probably tilted the projections the way they wanted.

But all that means is that, every year they delay it, then it's even MORE fully funded.

Larry, like I said.  Americans understand the country is broke.  Americans are also smart enough to know that a government run Obamacare, or Medicare D, or whatever program will always cost way more than anticipated.  Now it's great everyone wants health care, but don't play dumb like this thing is actually paid for.  It's not.

[TheGoodBits]

Ezra Klein details GOP's "Plan C" for the ongoing budget fight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/john-boehners-plan-c-hurts-congress-hurts-taxpayers-fixes-nothing/

It might actually pass since the only ones impacted are Congressional staffers. But it's incredibly stupid and pointless, which seems to be the theme of this Congress.

[Bliz]

Problem with that theory is the people saying that Obamacare goes into effect tomorrow, even if there's a shutdown.

At that instant, continuing to demand that the taxpayers be prevented from seeing the results of a program they've been paying for, for five years, is under a different light.

I'm also curious as to why we aren't seeing one particular talking point. I'd think that if I were advising the Dems, I'd be repeating, over and over . . .

1). Obamacare was fully funded, the day it passed. All projected spending was covered by revenues.

2). The government's been collecting those revenues for five years. The only argument is over whether the taxpayers receive the benefits that they've been paying for.

3). This program has already been delayed, several times, because Republicans kept swearing that they just needed more time.

4). Every time they've received more time, the reaction has been the same: try to kill it.

I think I'd try to create a slogan: the taxpayers have waited long enough.

 

Who says anyone has to be prevented from seeing the results?

 

What if the Exchange goes into effect, and is open to everyone, insurers are still bound by all of their mandates, and the only difference is that there's no mandate on individuals.  No requirement that you have it by Jan 1, no tax if you don't?

 

That would be a doubly-good plan for Pubs.  Offer people the benefits of the Exchanges, without the burdens.  Plus without the mandate, rates would probably be a little higher, so Pubs could also complain more convincingly about how it's not working.

[Larry]

Ezra Klein details GOP's "Plan C" for the ongoing budget fight.

From the article:

 

Plan C is the "Vitter amendment," which asks members of Congress and their staff (as well as the president and top political appointees) to choose between going without health insurance or accepting a massive pay cut.

 

The result of Vitter's amendment -- and of "Plan C" -- would not be that members of Congress and their staffs are treated like everyone else under Obamacare. Rather, they would be a) the only employees of a large employer whose employer is no longer allowed to offer them health coverage and b ) the only employees of a large employer whose employer is not allowed to contribute to their health-care premiums.

According to Vitter's staff, the amendment would also reverse the OPM's ruling making members of Congress and their staffs ineligible for taxpayer subsidies, and so Congress would now also be the only large employer in the country that wants to pay for its employees' health care but is instead dumping much of the cost on taxpayers.

I'm thinking, if they want to pull this publicity stunt, the correct response would be for the Senate to add an additional amendment, which would give all citizens the option of being covered by the same health care plan as members of congress and their staff, at government expense.

Long as we're comparing apples and oranges, and all.

----------

What if the Exchange goes into effect, and is open to everyone, insurers are still bound by all of their mandates, and the only difference is that there's no mandate on individuals.  No requirement that you have it by Jan 1, no tax if you don't?

The same problem as saying that you don't have to have car insurance, you can buy it after you have a car wreck, and they have to cover you.

[The Evil Genius]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/30/our-current-governing-crisis-in-two-sentences/

 

Our current governing crisis, in two sentences

 

By Greg Sargent, Published: September 30 at 2:19 pm

 

1) Only one party is demanding major concessions from the other in exchange for keeping the government open at sequester spending levels – levels leaders of that same party have already declared is a victory for them — while the other party is demanding exactly nothing in exchange for doing that.

 

2) Only one party is demanding major concessions from the other in exchange for making it possible for the U.S. to pay its bills — an outcome leaders of the same party have already declared is necessary to spare the country default and economic havoc – while the other party is demanding exactly nothing in exchange for doing that.

 

All clear now?

[@DCGoldPants]

GOP is now going for a one week extension. Think they are seeing the numbers that the blame is landing on them.

 

Dems are breaking out the "Anarchist" label to describe why nobody can deal with the GOP, and they can't seem to deal with themselves anymore.

 

Wish there was a law that said "In event of Gov't shutdown, all elected Senate and House officials will no longer be eligible to run for re-election, or Federal office again." 

[Bliz]

 

----------

The same problem as saying that you don't have to have car insurance, you can buy it after you have a car wreck, and they have to cover you.

 

 

Uhm, not for the car wreck they don't.

 

So yeah, if you get cancer, they still have to cover you.  No preexisting conditions exclusion, but that's just a 1 year extension of what is in place right now.  Stretching it out for a period of time means you will get more of that sort of situation.  But if you choose to forego insurance, and you need emergency surgery, then they won't have to cover you for that surgery (though possibly for future required related services, like physical therapy).

 

But that's not a huge problem.  Particularly not for Pubs.  What's the effect, worst case scenario?  Costs of policies rise.  What do they care? 

[Duckus]

This is getting embarrassing for the GOP. What a circus.

[@DCGoldPants]

In short...people are pissed at everybody.  

POLL: Just one in four approve of Republicans handling of government shutdown standoff

 

On the eve of a government shutdown, Americans disapprove of all players in Washington’s latest budget standoff in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, although they save particular ire for Republicans’ handling of the fight to fund the government beyond midnight.

Barely one in four (26 percent) approve of congressional Republicans’ handling of budget negotiations, while 34 percent approve of their Democratic counterparts and 41 percent approve of Obama’s approach. In each case, larger numbers say they “disapprove” of how Republicans, Democrats and Obama are handling things. Underscoring the disgruntled mood, 27 percent of Americans disapprove of all three.

 

 

 

[Larry]

This is getting embarrassing for the GOP. What a circus.

I think I saw Newt, like 2-3 weeks ago, saying this was a losing strategy. Something like "we've seen this dance before".

But then, that's been the Republicans problem for years, now. They're so brainwashed that they're incapable of admitting that there's something wrong with their POSITIONS. They keep thinking that if they can just change their PACKAGING, then everything will be fine.

[@DCGoldPants]

The GOP flunks Hostage Taking 101

 

 

 

By Marc A. Thiessen, Monday, September 30

 

Democrats are in such a panic over the prospect of a government shutdown that President Obama spent four hours on the golf course Saturday and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told his colleagues to take the weekend off, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi left town to celebrate her 50th wedding anniversary.

Why show up for work? The Democrats are following Napoleon’s old adage: Never interfere when your enemy is in the process of destroying himself.

Obama has accused Republicans of hostage taking. Let’s be clear: I’m all for taking hostages. Both sides do it all the time. But one of the first things they teach you in Hostage Taking 101 is that you have to choose a hostage the other side cares about saving. Obama and the Democrats don’t care about stopping a government shutdown. With a shutdown, Republicans are essentially putting a gun to their own heads and threatening to pull the trigger if the Democrats don’t capitulate. Not surprisingly, it’s not working.

Some congressional Republicans can’t seem to get it though their heads: When it comes to a government shutdown they . . . have . . .no . . . leverage. By contrast, when it comes to the debt-limit showdown, they do have leverage; while Obama can let the government close and blame the GOP, he cannot allow the United States to default.

 

 

More from the link.

[twa]

GOP is now going for a one week extension. Think they are seeing the numbers that the blame is landing on them.

 

Dems are breaking out the "Anarchist" label to describe why nobody can deal with the GOP, and they can't seem to deal with themselves anymore.

 

Wish there was a law that said "In event of Gov't shutdown, all elected Senate and House officials will no longer be eligible to run for re-election, or Federal office again." 

I agree they cannot deal with them if they do not try.....and they are fond of name calling and the blame game

 

I'd go along with that last suggestion ,but I'm almost always ready to replace all of them 

[Gallen5862]

CSpan and CSpan 2 said that the Senate unanimously approved the House Bill to pay the Military in case of a shutdown.

[Larry]

The GOP flunks Hostage Taking 101

Yeah, I was wondering when it was going to occur to the Republicans that the fact that this isn't working, means that they have to threaten to harm the country more.

 

Also assume this is where the "please just delay Oabamcare a few weeks" is coming from.  It's a "please give us time to go get a bigger hostage" tactic. 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Senate dems should just pass a bill with the teeniest, tiniest tax cut for the wealthy along with an otherwise clean CR and watch the House GOP's heads explode.

[TheGoodBits]

Senate dems should just pass a bill with the teeniest, tiniest tax cut for the wealthy along with an otherwise clean CR and watch the House GOP's heads explode.

Maybe a provision that requires Obama to show his birth certificate to every member of Congress.

[The Evil Genius]

Maybe a provision that requires Obama to show his birth certificate to every member of Congress.

 

I'd rather see Ted Cruz's Canadian birth certificate (or Orly Taitz's Russian one).

[Gallen5862]

The House passed the CR 228 to 201. !2 Republicans voted against it and 9 Democrats voted for it.

[Gallen5862]

The Senate just voted to kill the House amendments on the Government Funding CR.

[Jumbo]

We already have three threads on the matter, so I will just put this here though it's more general:

 

 http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20131001/US--Budget.Battle/?cid=hero_media

 

"You may see a partial shutdown for several days," Blackburn, R-Tenn., told Fox News. "People are going to realize they can live with a lot less government."

 

The health care law itself was unaffected as enrollment opened Tuesday for millions of people shopping for medical insurance.

 

It was the first shutdown since a budget battle between Republicans in Congress and Democratic President Bill Clinton in the winter of 1995-1996.

 

 

The self-funded Postal Service will continue to operate and the government will continue to pay Social Security benefits and Medicare and Medicaid fees to doctors on time.

 

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers get to decide which of their staff members keep working and which are furloughed. Members of Congress will continue getting paid.

 

 

 

Boehner said he didn't want a government shutdown, but added the health care law "is having a devastating impact. ... Something has to be done."

 

It wasn't clear how long the standoff would last, but it appeared that Obama and Reid had the upper hand.

 

"We can't win," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., adding that "sooner or later" the House would have to agree to Democrats' demands for a simple, straightforward funding bill reopening the government.

 

Another veteran Republican, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, called the shutdown "a big mistake." Interviewed on MSNBC, Cole called on House and Senate negotiations to end the impasse and insisted Democrats should yield on delaying the requirement that individual Americans have health coverage.

 

 

 

The underlying spending bill would fund the government through Nov. 15 if the Senate gets its way or until Dec. 15 if the House does.

 

Until now, such bills have been routinely passed with bipartisan support, ever since a pair of shutdowns 17 years ago engineered by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich severely damaged Republican election prospects and revived then-President Bill Clinton's political standing.

 

Boehner had sought to avoid the shutdown and engineer passage of a "clean" temporary spending bill for averting a government shutdown.

 

This time tea party activists mobilized by freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, mounted a campaign to seize the must-do measure in an effort to derail Obamacare. GOP leaders voiced reservations and many Republican lawmakers predicted it wouldn't work. Some even labeled it "stupid."

 

But the success of Cruz and other tea party-endorsed conservatives who upset establishment GOP candidates in 2010 and 2012 primaries was a lesson learned for many Republican lawmakers going into next year's election.

 

 

 

 

more at link