Saw him on O'Reilly's show yesterday. He is very unimpressive to say the least.
Had no answers for why the House Republicans couldn't offer up a much more articulable, simple and reasonable compromise to delay the individual mandates for the ACA for a year in exchange for funding the gov't to the end of the calendar year. This would also have the added bonus of being much more easy to get the Republicans message out in the MSM as to what the Democrats have to give in on to end the shutdown.
Man, if as a Republican you have O'Reilly going after you for trying to undermine the democrats it's time to take stock of the situation and perhaps realize how far offsides you are....
The Following User Says Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
Had no answers for why the House Republicans couldn't offer up a much more articulable, simple and reasonable compromise to delay the individual mandates for the ACA for a year in exchange for funding the gov't to the end of the calendar year.
This is still legislative hostage taking and would not be accepted by the democrats in the Senate nor the president.
Quote:
One thing I really want to call the MSM's coverage of the shutdown out is on how they are exaggerating apparently immediate doom and destruction affects the shutdown is going to have on the US economy. The Federal Reserve's QE/stimulus efforts remain unaffected by the shutdown (which is what is really driving the "recovery" - somewhat artificially in my view, but nonetheless). The Wall Street guys are still going to work. The 80% of American workers who work in the private sector (and who are therefore responsible for 100% of the net taxation revenue) are still going to work. Certain sectors of the Federal Government are unaffected (air triaffic controllers, food inspectors, uniformed military personnel).
Yeah, it's about a million people who are directly affected, but that's still a significant number of people, and it indirectly affects those who want the services provided by those million or so people.
The main thing is, do you even doubt they're going to use the debt ceiling in the same way they're using the budget? It's just going to be the same story all over again - do as we say or we won't pass the debt ceiling bill. And you'd better believe that that will have immediate and significant effects on the economy, of the world, not just the US.
There's a HUGE difference between proroguing parliament and halting virtually all functions normally performed by employees of the federal government. It's ridiculous to even compare the two.
Among other service disruptions, Americans cannot apply for a passport or visit a national park right now; the same is not true for Canadians because our government is still functioning even though parliament is prorogued.
The State Department is still processing passport applications because that activity generates enough revenue to sustain itself. National Parks, Recreation Areas, Monuments, Historical Sites, Museums etc are all closed for sure.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Yes I understand that a prolonged shutdown of a few weeks like last time might start to affect the economy. But this imminent doom and gloom the MSM is spewing is a bit offensive.
Show me some measurable affects, then I'll listen.
How about this:
I have a US National Parks vacation planned, and if the shutdown continues beyond Friday, I'll have to cancel the vacation, which means that the money that I would have spent in certain places won't be spent there (or perhaps anywhere in the US, depending on what I end up doing during my vacation).
I presume that other travelers would take similar action, particularly as they consider whether they should book another vacation (that would be unaffected by Congress buffoonery) or gamble that their limited vacation time won't be affected by a park closure.
So in the span of just a few days, places that are dependent upon tourist dollars are going to see (if they haven't already) a significant decline in tourists and dollars.
I'm sure the tea-party Republicans that live in such places don't care, but as for the rest of the population, they would probably like to have steady employment and income.
ETA: You want some other measurable effects? How about no oil and gas permitting is currently taking place on Federal lands--that is probably hurting a few Calgary companies at the moment.
Last edited by HockeyIlliterate; 10-02-2013 at 01:41 PM.
Man, if as a Republican you have O'Reilly going after you for trying to undermine the democrats it's time to take stock of the situation and perhaps realize how far offsides you are....
On this issue, O'Reilly has actually been the clear-headed voice of reason on the right. His message on this one has been consistent for the last two weeks.
Jimmy Kimmel also did something similar last night, asking people on the street if they like Obamacare and then if they liked the Affordable Care Act. Americans should never be allowed to complain about their politicians when they themselves are this misinformed.
Why the news media thinks it is ok to refer to the ACA as Obamacare on a regular basis is a mystery to me. They are a huge part of the problem you have illustrated.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
This is still legislative hostage taking and would not be accepted by the democrats in the Senate nor the president.
There are some significant issues with ACA. Congress and certain powerful friends have obtained exemptions (some temporary, some permanent) from ACA. Why can't inidividuals be given the choice? You could still sign on right away. Or if wary, sit back a year and see how it is working. If it works the way it is supposed to, you might end up supporting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19
Yeah, it's about a million people who are directly affected, but that's still a significant number of people, and it indirectly affects those who want the services provided by those million or so people.
We need more focused coverage on the economic consequences of specific services lost. Not generalized gloom and doom. The MSM is 40,000 ft up and that's all theey are bothering to say. Go to medium and small businesses and ask them how the shutdown is affecting them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19
The main thing is, do you even doubt they're going to use the debt ceiling in the same way they're using the budget? It's just going to be the same story all over again - do as we say or we won't pass the debt ceiling bill. And you'd better believe that that will have immediate and significant effects on the economy, of the world, not just the US.
The debt ceiling is a much bigger issue for the US and indeed world economy than the shutdown is, I will absolutely agree. A debt default by the US would be the first domino in a big collapse. I doubt it will happen once the Republicans realize just how wrong they are on the PR side of things these days. The negative public opinion on the shutdown alone, a much smaller issue, should give them singificant pause.
HockeyIlliterate I acknowledge that you have pointed out some valid economic affects. But for the moment those would be minor. I concede that they could become more than minor if the shutdown lasts a few weeks like the last one did.
It seems to be taken as absolute truth that a shutdown of even a couple of days could equal another recession and an end to the recovery. I am very skeptical of this.
That's intersting for sure, but this "offers their first real opportunity to register to vote. " is more than a little misleading.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The GOP must really be afraid that the ACA will be a success, otherwise, they could just let it go in the belief it will be a big fail, and then sit back, and say "We told you so"
^ "Told you so" is mostly the strategy O'Reilly is advocating. He thinks if people get the choice to sit around and watch certain people floundering under ACA for a year (i.e. the poepl who sign up right away), support for it will continue to lessen. Could backfire (i.e. if ACA is successful), but at least it's rational.
The more radical arm of the Republican party on the other hand has ACA derrangement syndrome. Also they seem to think there is no going back once it is in effect. I don't get it, they could always improve it, replace it, repeal it. It's democracy.
Yes I understand that a prolonged shutdown of a few weeks like last time might start to affect the economy. But this imminent doom and gloom the MSM is spewing is a bit offensive.
Show me some measurable affects, then I'll listen.
Here's one that was narrowly avoided only due to luck in scheduling.
A new fund complex I work on which requires SEC review and approval before sales to the public would have been delayed (and still could be if this goes long enough) had it been scheduled to file yesterday or today.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
HockeyIlliterate I acknowledge that you have pointed out some valid economic affects. But for the moment those would be minor. I concede that they could become more than minor if the shutdown lasts a few weeks like the last one did.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "minor" is.
There are numerous reports that the shutdown is costing the National Park Service $450K a day, and that (collectively) the towns around National Parks are losing around $30M a day.
I don't consider that to be a "minor" economic effect, particularly when it doesn't take into consideration the "add-on" costs involved in getting to a National Park (i.e., flying to the destination, renting a car, hotels along the way, food and fuel expenses, etc.). It isn't just the local National Park gateway towns that are suffering, it is (potentially) all the little towns along the way from wherever the tourist is from to the National Park itself that may suffer.
But, of course, the tea-party Republicans care about small business and don't want to do anything that would hurt them or jeopardize their future, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntenseFan
It seems to be taken as absolute truth that a shutdown of even a couple of days could equal another recession and an end to the recovery. I am very skeptical of this.
I think that the bigger issue is that the shutdown morphs into a debt ceiling battle, which forces a lengthy shutdown and has a cascading impact on the US economy. I don't think that a severe recession is on the horizon, but at the same time, I don't think that one can underestimate the tea-party Republicans' desire to self-destruct and damage the USA.
Last edited by HockeyIlliterate; 10-02-2013 at 02:19 PM.
The other point is that it's really not all republicans, it's a group led by a Mr. Cruz of TexasCalgary. The Republican leadership basically thinks this is a potential disaster, and also pointless because it doesn't affect Obamacare and they don't believe the President will give in in any circumstance. I doubt he will, because all it will lead to is them doing this again with the debt ceiling, and then again with the next budget cycle, extracting further demands.
fyp
Maybe the Birthers were right about foreign-born politicians trying to destroy America.
