Republicans In crisis and a Nation and a Democracy on the Sacrificial Alter

[wellwisher]

if you look back at the history of humanity, humans were mostly under the control of despot governments, mostly led by royalty, who would restrict human freedoms, over tax, steal and micro-manage the lives of its citizens. Only the elite inner circle of power had freedoms and there was no welfare state except for the rich. People were all poor and they had to be self reliant, including supporting lazy and corrupt leadership at the point of the sword.

When the US formed in 1776, they did it differently, with the repressed average citizens granted more freedom by restricting the power and influence of centralize control. It was a Government for the people, who did not control the people; public servant not master. Progressive is not going backwards toward bigger government with more rules and control. Progressive, in terms of history, is moving away from centralized control in favor of more individual right and liberties.

What I don't like about liberal socialism is ultimately forms two classes. The elite and corrupt in charge and the peasant people who become their slaves. Most liberals expect to be part of the elite in control of the worker slaves. They don't want business to succeed since this spreads out the power away from the center. For example, we the slave class get ObamaCare while the Senate and Congress and their staff write themselves an exemption. The elite see themselves are above the huddled masses; master not servant. The liberals help this repressive and regression so they can continue the tasks of regulating, restricting, over taxing, spying, lying and stealing back to the old way.

If you listen to Obama and his cronies, they think the Constitution is moldy old document. It gives rights to people and not to the leaders. Obama showed us his hand and his repressive goal of centralized control.

 

[wellwisher]

As far as the deficit, the reason it is so high is due to incompetence. The incompetence is due, in large part, to the election process. This media driven process takes certain skills that do not translate into being good at the final job.

As an example, say we changed the election process to a mixed martial arts competition. The winner of that process may be the best at the process, but would this make him good at running a country?

The current process is about illusions using media special effects. Hollywood can take a child and make them a star. Cheating is allowed in terns of liberties with the truth and freedom to lie. This process does take skills but these skills do not translate to efficiency in the job.

When you have an entire congress and senate, labelled statesman due to a process, you need huge deficits to disguise their incompetence. If it is large enough even an idiot can appear to get something done.

What type of process who give us competent leaders?

 

[joepistole]

Truer hypocrisy just does not exist than a Repub politician extolling the benefits of an unregulated free market. Part of their lives are spent as socialists and the other part is some plush job at a Corporation for portraying Government as an unnecessary evil. While they are glad to dismantle Unions and others pension plans, they will be glad to draw their Government pensions. Bloodsuckers!

Indeed, the hypocrisy is mind numbing.

 

[joepistole]

As far as the deficit, the reason it is so high is due to incompetence. The incompetence is due, in large part, to the election process. This media driven process takes certain skills that do not translate into being good at the final job.

As an example, say we changed the election process to a mixed martial arts competition. The winner of that process may be the best at the process, but would this make him good at running a country?

The current process is about illusions using media special effects. Hollywood can take a child and make them a star. Cheating is allowed in terns of liberties with the truth and freedom to lie. This process does take skills but these skills do not translate to efficiency in the job.

When you have an entire congress and senate, labelled statesman due to a process, you need huge deficits to disguise their incompetence. If it is large enough even an idiot can appear to get something done.

What type of process who give us competent leaders?

The problem is not incompetence. The problem is corruption and voter ignorance, corruption and ignorance which is fomented by our election process and ethical standards or lack thereof we expect from our elected officials. Elections need to be publicly funded. And we need to eliminate the partisan echo chambers (i.e. bring back The Fairness Doctrine). So listeners of Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. will get the other side of the story and lies can be identified as such. Suddenly where there is no penalty for lying, the liar’s credibility becomes at risk and consumers get better information and can become better informed. And finally, our elected officials and their families should not be allowed to become lobbyists while they are in office or for the decade after they leave office, nor should lobbyists be allowed to provide our elected officials with “educational” vacations or any other gift or benefit.

http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf/Medicare Part D Reform & Coruption Issues.pdf

 

[joepistole]

if you look back at the history of humanity, humans were mostly under the control of despot governments, mostly led by royalty, who would restrict human freedoms, over tax, steal and micro-manage the lives of its citizens. Only the elite inner circle of power had freedoms and there was no welfare state except for the rich. People were all poor and they had to be self reliant, including supporting lazy and corrupt leadership at the point of the sword.

Well that is a pile of poop. While it is true that for most of human existence, we have been governed by monarchy it is quite another to say that during that time humans were micro-managed. You are doing a lot of broad brushing and I don’t get what you are trying to say or how it is relevant.

When the US formed in 1776, they did it differently, with the repressed average citizens granted more freedom by restricting the power and influence of centralize control. It was a Government for the people, who did not control the people; public servant not master. Progressive is not going backwards toward bigger government with more rules and control. Progressive, in terms of history, is moving away from centralized control in favor of more individual right and liberties.

Well no, they didn’t. You need to brush up on your American history. Only male landowners were given the voting rights. Slaves, women and landless men were not given rights. It was a government for some people but not all people. Further the original Articles of Confederation were later replaced because the loose decentralized government didn’t work. So the founding fathers created the Constitution which provided for a stronger central government. So contrary to your claims, the founding fathers moved from a weak central government to a stronger central government.

What I don't like about liberal socialism is ultimately forms two classes. The elite and corrupt in charge and the peasant people who become their slaves. Most liberals expect to be part of the elite in control of the worker slaves. They don't want business to succeed since this spreads out the power away from the center. For example, we the slave class get ObamaCare while the Senate and Congress and their staff write themselves an exemption. The elite see themselves are above the huddled masses; master not servant. The liberals help this repressive and regression so they can continue the tasks of regulating, restricting, over taxing, spying, lying and stealing back to the old way.

What you don’t like about “socialism” is a myth. Where is your evidence that demonstrates your claim that “liberal socialism ultimately forms two classes”? And how does that differ from “conservatism”? Here is the truth; there will always be classes regardless of government. Under a socialist or conservative government there will be classes. There will be a need for leaders and there will be a need for followers regardless of the political system. Ironically, this is one of the myths you and your conservative fellows share with communism…a classless society. It can never be as long as we have different skills, talents, abilities and needs.

Just what have “liberal” done that makes you think they are imperialists or monarchists? Further, there are no exemptions for congress with respect to Obamacare. Congress is required to have healthcare insurance just like everyone else. Congress and their families can use Obamacare just like everyone else.

Republicans in congress are debating turning down Obamacare coverage. Some Republicans like Vitter want to take congressmen out of Obamacare. Other Republicans, most Republican congressmen like their Obamacare.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obamacare-republicans-96960.html

And by the way, when was the last time one of those old medieval monarchs gave their citizens healthcare? When did those medieval monarchs give their people a guaranteed income in their old age? When was the last time those medieval monarchs paid to support orphans or to educate all the children in their realms? Those are the things “liberals” are for and things you “conservatives” have been against.

If you listen to Obama and his cronies, they think the Constitution is moldy old document. It gives rights to people and not to the leaders. Obama showed us his hand and his repressive goal of centralized control.

Oh and where is the evidence that leads you to make that claim? We both know you don’t have it because your post is just more mindless conservative demagoguery. And Republicans wonder why people think they are stupid…

 

[Tiassa]

Myth O'Logical

Slaves, women and landless men were not given rights.

True, but it is also worth pointing out that the slaves actually had it better off; they were three-fifths of a person. Constitutionally, it is unclear when women became people, as well, but if it's happened it was after 1920.

What you don't like about 'socialism' is a myth.

Did you ever notice the projection that takes place, though?

If the proper aim under Socialism is to render poverty itself impossible, and—

—Capitalism requires a large poverty underclass—

—then we can only conclude that socialism will stratify society, while capitalism will break down those barriers.​

It's one of the reasons why the phrase cognitive dissonance is unsatisfactory; the clinical diagnosis of this neurosis, and, subsequently, the dialectic of that neurosis resulting in the historical record, is far more fascinating and mysterious.

 

[joepistole]

Did you ever notice the projection that takes place, though?

If the proper aim under Socialism is to render poverty itself impossible, and—

—Capitalism requires a large poverty underclass—

—then we can only conclude that socialism will stratify society, while capitalism will break down those barriers.​

It's one of the reasons why the phrase cognitive dissonance is unsatisfactory; the clinical diagnosis of this neurosis, and, subsequently, the dialectic of that neurosis resulting in the historical record, is far more fascinating and mysterious.

Indeed, it is so massive and so pervasive on the right it is difficult to ignore. Another and more truthful name for the so called conservative movement would be “Projections R US Inc.”.

 

[joepistole]

Well it’s interesting to see Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal’s take on the latest round of Republican hostage taking in the House. They are telling their foot soldiers that a public default or government shutdown is not in their best interest and it would be a win for that evil nasty Obama. Ironically, this may be one of the few times they are telling the truth. They are trying to goad their Republican foot soldiers into doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Below is the opinion piece from the WSJ.

“The Power of 218
Perhaps the only war strategizing more inept than President Obama's on Syria are GOP plans for the budget hostilities this autumn. Republicans are fracturing over tactics, and even over the nature of political reality, which may let Mr. Obama outwit them like a domestic Vladimir Putin.

In our view the GOP would be less confused if more House Members appreciated the power of 218. That's the number of votes that makes a majority and it is the only true "leverage" Republicans have while Democrats hold the Senate and a Presidential veto.

The latest GOP internal dispute is over a continuing resolution to fund the government at sequester-spending levels. The current CR runs out at the end of the month, and about 40 to 50 House Republicans (out of 233) want to attach a rider that either delays or defunds the Affordable Care Act for a year and leaves everything else running.

Speaker John Boehner floated a CR with an arcane procedure that would force the Senate to take an up-or-down vote on the anti-ObamaCare component. But pressure groups like Heritage Action and the Club for Growth rebelled and the vote had to be postponed, like so many other unforced retreats this Congress. Here we go again.

These critics portrayed the Boehner plan as a sellout because of a campaign that captured the imagination of some conservatives this summer: Republicans must threaten to crash their Zeros into the aircraft carrier of ObamaCare. Their demand is that the House pair the "must pass" CR or the debt limit with defunding the health-care bill. Kamikaze missions rarely turn out well, least of all for the pilots.

The problem is that Mr. Obama is never, ever going to unwind his signature legacy project of national health care. Ideology aside, it would end his Presidency politically. And if Republicans insist that any spending bill must defund ObamaCare, then a showdown is inevitable that shuts down much of the government. Republicans will claim that Democrats are the ones shutting it down to preserve ObamaCare. Voters may see it differently given the media's liberal sympathies and because the repeal-or-bust crowd provoked the confrontation.

With his own popularity fading, Mr. Obama may want a shutdown so he can change the subject to his caricature of GOP zealots who want no government. He'll blame any turmoil or economic fallout on House Republicans, figuring that he can split the tea party from the GOP and that this is the one event that could reinstall Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. Mr. Obama could spend his final two years going out in a blaze of liberal glory.

Political Diary editor Jason Riley on how House Republicans are handling the coming budget showdown.

The defunders sketch out an alternative scenario in which Mr. Obama is blamed, and they say we can't know unless Republicans try. But even they admit privately that they really won't succeed in defunding ObamaCare. The best case seems to be that if all Republicans show resolve they'll win over the public in a shutdown, and Democrats will eventually surrender, well, something.

If this works it would be the first time. The evidence going back to the Newt Gingrich Congress is that no party can govern from the House, and the Republican Party can't abide the outcry when flights are delayed, national parks close and direct deposits for military spouses stop. Sooner or later the GOP breaks.

This all-or-nothing posture also usually results in worse policy. The most recent example was the failure of Mr. Boehner's fiscal cliff "Plan B" in December 2012, which was the best the GOP could do because Mr. Obama had the whip hand of automatic tax increases. The fallback deal that was sealed in the Senate raised taxes by more and is now complicating the prospects for tax reform.

The backbenchers are heading into another box canyon now. Mr. Boehner is undermined because the other side knows he lacks 218 GOP votes, which empowers House and Senate Democrats. They want to reverse the modest spending discipline of the sequester, and if the House GOP can't hold together on the CR they will succeed. The only chance of any entitlement reform worth the name is if Mr. Boehner can hold his majority and negotiate from strength.

We've often supported backbenchers who want to push GOP leaders in a better policy direction, most recently on the farm bill. But it's something else entirely to sabotage any plan with a chance of succeeding and pretend to have "leverage" that exists only in the world of townhall applause lines and fundraising letters.

The best option now is for the GOP to unite behind a budget strategy that can hold 218 votes, keeping the sequester pressure of discretionary spending cuts on Democrats to come to the table on entitlements. The sequester is a rare policy victory the GOP has extracted from Mr. Obama, and it is squeezing liberal constituencies that depend on federal cash.

The backbenchers might even look at the polls showing that the public is now tilting toward Republicans on issues including the economy, ensuring a strong national defense and even health care. Some Republicans think they are sure to hold the House in 2014 no matter what happens because of gerrymandering, but even those levees won't hold if there's a wave of revulsion against the GOP. Marginal seats still matter for controlling Congress. The kamikazes could end up ensuring the return of all-Democratic rule."- WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323846504579073083671216784.html

 

[Tiassa]

Narratives

Well it's interesting to see Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal's take on the latest round of Republican hostage taking in the House.

See, that's the fun thing in all of this, the guilty pleasure and fatty nugget reward for putting up with all this lean poultry deep-fried in sewage. To wit, as you're aware, I enjoy Steve Benen's narratives, and this is one of those occasions when circumstance makes the point; he's not as loose with the facts as conservatives like to presume. It's just that he's really good at making a grim narrative entertaining:

Some problems are so complex and difficult, they're nearly impossible to solve. Avoiding a government shutdown isn't one of them.

After his far-right members vetoed his preferred solution, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) could have very easily reached out to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), put some modest enticements on the table, and picked up plenty of votes to approve a stop-gap spending measure. The whole thing could have been wrapped up in an afternoon, and the media would have cheered Boehner for constructive, bipartisan governing.

But that's not what the laughably weak Speaker is inclined to do.

The threat of a government shutdown intensified Tuesday as House Republican leaders moved toward stripping funding from President Obama's landmark health-care initiative and setting up a stalemate with the Democratic Senate.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) had hoped to keep the government open past Sept. 30 with relatively little fuss. But roughly 40 conservatives revolted. After a strategy session Tuesday, Boehner and his leadership team were being pushed into a more confrontational strategy that would fund the government into the new fiscal year only if Democrats agreed to undermine Obama's signature legislative achievement.​

It's not just the Washington Post reporting this—Politico, Roll Call, and National Review published related pieces, and all of them outline the same legislative blueprint.

Here's the plan: the Republican-led House intends to pass a temporary spending measure, called a continuing resolution (or "CR"), which defunds the Affordable Care Act. This isn't what GOP leaders want, but the far-right extremists are calling the shots, and the followers are now leading the leaders. From there, the bill will go to the Democratic-led Senate, which, after it finishes laughing, will immediately reject the House bill

The upper chamber will then pass a more responsible measure, and send it back to the House, which will be faced with a straightforward, binary choice: pass the Senate version or shut down the government.

All of this, of course, will have to happen quite quickly, since the shutdown deadline is just 12 days away, and the House hasn't even presented its bill yet, and House Republicans may take all of next week off. If Boehner were capable of just blowing off his nihilist wing and governing like a grown-up—or even just capable of persuading his own allies to follow his lead—this would be a simple process, but he's really just the Speaker In Name Only.​

In this case, it's just a matter of what one does with the facts. It's actually refreshing to see WSJ and TRMS operating in the same general region of reality, if only for a few days. The problem for Republicans, of course, is that the Sino-Republican War is a much more believable narrative than all the problems of the GOP somehow being Obama's fault. Or, well, okay, what is the right-wing narrative du jour on how the Republican Party ended up wherever the hell it is?

But, you know what I mean?

Perhaps the great tragedy of all this is that when the history is written, the tale of stupid notions like the Hastert Rule and its implications in these dealings will be forgotten. That is, it's easy to underestimate the Hastert Rule's significance in all this, but the whole majority-of-the-majority, never-need-the-opposition idea, running concurrently to partisan demands for bipartisan cooperation, and the ability of conservative voters to rally 'round the contradiction and sell it as a shiny bauble to independent voters, is definitely worth consideration now that the political philosophy is literally up against the wall, and the expected trigger man will be from within the organization.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Boehner moves closer to government shutdown". The Maddow Blog. September 18, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. September 18, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/18/20559120-boehner-moves-closer-to-government-shutdown

 

[joepistole]

The years of Republican lies about Obamacare are about to be laid bare and exposed for all to see. And that probably accounts for a good portion of vociferous Republican resistance to Obamacare. Republican politicians and their right wing entertainment complex will have some explaining to do once people find out they have been lied to.

“Proof Of Politics: Indiana Fudges Truth On Health Exchange Rates To Make Obamacare Look Bad

Ms. Kliff also did a little digging to discover that the actual prices for Bronze and Silver plans in Indiana are going to be far below the $512 a month estimate provided by the state’s government

“Anthem’s rate filing includes projections for health insurance costs in their bronze plans. A 47-year-old male who does not smoke would be charged, on average, $307 per month. Sample plans from another plan, MDWise, predict a 47-year-old man will be charged $294 and $391 for a bronze and silver plan, respectively.”

While you may find the actual rates of the policies to be made available on the Indiana individual exchange to be good news or bad— depending on what you currently pay for health coverage—one would at least hope that the state would want to put out an honest analysis.

Unexpected Health Insurance Rate Shock-California Obamacare Insurance Exchange Announces Premium Rates Rick UngarRick Ungar Contributor

The Dull Knives Come Out As Anti-Obamacare Forces Falsely Attack California Healthcare Exchange:

Rick Perry To 6.5 Million Texans With No Healthcare-You're On Your Own Rick UngarRick Ungar Contributor

GOP Leadership Intentionally Distorting Obamacare As Job Killer Rick UngarRick Ungar Contributor

But an honest analysis gets in the way of politics, particularly when we are talking about an ambitious Republican governor like Mike Pence.

One can only hope that, at some point, the public at large will begin to ‘get’ the games and lies opponents of healthcare reform have been playing ever since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. When you have a situation like what we are seeing in Indiana, it becomes difficult to understand how anyone could avoid acknowledging that the disingenuous behavior of the anti-Obamacare forces truly knows no bounds.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-exchange-rates-to-make-obamacare-look-bad/2/

 

[joepistole]

Some congressional Republicans (i.e. the Cruz faction) are trying to rewrite history again. Instead of lying to others, they are lying to themselves again, just like they did in the last general election. They are now telling themselves that the Republican government shut downs in the 90’s really were not that bad for Republicans. And good old Rasmussen, the same polling firm that told them Romney was going to win last year, is telling them that Americans really want a government shutdown.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...y-be-all-that-bad-for-republicans-yes/279790/

God, I have never before seen so much whacko nonsense in American politics. It’s really tragic.

 

[Tiassa]

Wendy Davis' Balls

Wendy Davis' Balls

The Republican Party is on the warpath ... against itself.

Tensions between House and Senate conservatives has been brewing for weeks over a scheme to try to force a government shutdown unless Obamacare gets defunded, but the friction spilled into the public and onto social media Wednesday night after Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz acknowledged that the plan is probably doomed in the upper chamber.

"Harry Reid will no doubt try to strip the defund language from the continuing resolution, and right now he likely has the votes to do so," Cruz said, according to Roll Call. "At that point, House Republicans must stand firm, hold their ground."

House Republicans have quietly resented how much pressure has been put on them to carry out a plan hatched in the Senate, and the two chambers have been passing the hot potato for the past week about who would be the ones to actually vote down a government funding bill if it comes to that. Cruz's comments were apparently the the last straw for some. A spokesperson for House Speaker John Boehner immediately put the pressure back on the Senate—"We trust Republicans in the Senate will put up a fight worthy of the challenge that Obamacare poses"—but other Republicans had stronger words.

(Seitz-Wald)​

The best so far is one of those "unnamed" GOP aides who said, "Wendy Davis has more balls than Ted Cruz". Although the line about the French really stings, too.

With the Traditional GOP fighting against the Insurgent Tea Party, this really could shape up to be the most interesting psychodrama of the upcoming fights. The Old Guard knows it can't win this budget fight. The Tea Party doesn't care. The Old Guard will only take their Antoinette routine so far. The Tea Party doesn't care how many they hurt. The conservative heritage over the years never intended this kind of cruelty. The Tea Party lives for it.

A shutdown is likely, but I remember missile strikes against Syria recently seeming inevitable, so who knows? The GOP knows it can't win on the debt ceiling. Well, at least the RNC faction. The Tea Party doesn't care, or maybe they think genuinely hurting the nation with a debt ceiling standoff counts as a victory. The lunatics are running the asylum in the House, and the ironic thing about the Senate issue is that Cruz partially aligns with the RNC faction; while the RNC doesn't want this fight at all, they certainly don't want it in the Senate. Then again, that's why they don't want the fight at all; there is no way to win in the Senate, which means it all comes back to the House, where a Tea Party win is a loss for the RNC. I mean, sure, it's bad for everyone, but they're the RNC, and the only reason everyone else matters is because some of those people are voters, and the RNC knows the GOP simply cannot win this fight.

There is that joke, you know. And the Republican will tell you government doesn't work, and then he gets elected, and then he proves it.

Of course government doesn't work if your only purpose is to prevent government from working.

Just like your car isn't going to get however many miles to the gallon if the first thing you do is shoot the gas tank with a fifty calbier round.

Just sayin'.
____________________

Notes:

Seitz-Wald, Alex. "Republican Civil War Over Obamacare Explodes on Twitter". National Journal. September 18, 2013. NationalJournal.com. September 19, 2013. http://www.nationaljournal.com/cong...r-over-obamacare-explodes-on-twitter-20130918

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

God, I have never before seen so much whacko nonsense in American politics. It’s really tragic.

This is the kind of dysfunction we make fun of in the governments of Third World countries.

Unfortunately it can't be said that this has never happened before, since the government was in fact shut down in a similar way during the Clinton administration.

I agree with the Democrats that the USA is prosperous enough that we can easily afford to provide everyone with health insurances, just as so many European nations do. But I agree with the Republicans that this was the absolute worst time to implement it, with a runaway national debt. A debt crafted by two Republican Presidents, Reagan and Backward Baby Bush. Reagan has the distinction of having added a new zero to the figure during a time of peace and prosperity, when the government is supposed to pay down its debts because people don't need new government projects, and raise taxes because people can afford it, so that they'll be able to borrow lots of money the next time there's a crisis. And of course Bush has the distinction of launching the longest war in our history without even trying to finance it, instead merely borrowing the money from China.

It looks like the Republicans are at it again. They may be the next U.S. political party to die out. Perhaps the 2020 election will be between the Democrats and the Green Party. When the party of Abe Lincoln is now 95% white and its stronghold is the former Confederacy, I think we can say that it has completely lost its way.

 

[joepistole]

This is the kind of dysfunction we make fun of in the governments of Third World countries.

Unfortunately it can't be said that this has never happened before, since the government was in fact shut down in a similar way during the Clinton administration.

I agree with the Democrats that the USA is prosperous enough that we can easily afford to provide everyone with health insurances, just as so many European nations do. But I agree with the Republicans that this was the absolute worst time to implement it, with a runaway national debt. A debt crafted by two Republican Presidents, Reagan and Backward Baby Bush. Reagan has the distinction of having added a new zero to the figure during a time of peace and prosperity, when the government is supposed to pay down its debts because people don't need new government projects, and raise taxes because people can afford it, so that they'll be able to borrow lots of money the next time there's a crisis. And of course Bush has the distinction of launching the longest war in our history without even trying to finance it, instead merely borrowing the money from China.

It looks like the Republicans are at it again. They may be the next U.S. political party to die out. Perhaps the 2020 election will be between the Democrats and the Green Party. When the party of Abe Lincoln is now 95% white and its stronghold is the former Confederacy, I think we can say that it has completely lost its way.

For all the hoopla the US debt really isn’t that bad compared to that of other wealthy nations or to our post WWII debt. We have the ability to manage our debt, the question is do we have the political will to do so?

We have two big fiscal problems. The most immediate problem is getting the economy growing at a 3% to 4% rate and bringing us to full employment. The longer term fiscal problem is to get our healthcare costs under control. Because if action is not taken, healthcare costs will cause significant deficits and debt in the future. Healthcare currently cost the US economy 17% of its GDP and until Obamacare, costs had been growing at twice GDP growth for decades. That is just not a sustainable healthcare or fiscal model. In the US we pay twice what any other wealthy country pays and our healthcare system is increasingly less effective. US healthcare quality is falling and costs are rising. The pre Obamacare US healthcare model has failed and is no longer affordable. And we cannot fix our debt and deficit issues without addressing the problems with our healthcare system. Obamacare is a fix. It does, per the Congressional Budget Office, reduce the US deficit and debt...something Republicans like to deny and overlook.

A whole lot of attention has been focused on the moral imperative of universal healthcare, but there is a more important imperative….getting our healthcare costs in line with those of other wealthy countries and bringing down our projected deficits and debt. Our high healthcare costs are a drag on our economy and will eventually lead to devastating national debt unless we ration healthcare and only the wealthy will have it. Healthcare is our big long term fiscal problem. We cannot solve our long term fiscal problems without solving our healthcare problems. The Congressional Budget Office estimated Obamacare would reduce the deficit by 100 billion from 2009 to 2019 and in the subsequent decade it will save a trillion dollars. Personally, I think that is a very conservative number as it doesn’t include process improvement in Obamacare like automation and establishing best practices, things that have been huge cost savers in private industry for decades now.

As for the Republican Party, we can only hope the insanity stops.

 

[quinnsong]

With the Traditional GOP fighting against the Insurgent Tea Party, this really could shape up to be the most interesting psychodrama of the upcoming fights. The Old Guard knows it can't win this budget fight. The Tea Party doesn't care. The Old Guard will only take their Antoinette routine so far. The Tea Party doesn't care how many they hurt. The conservative heritage over the years never intended this kind of cruelty. The Tea Party lives for it.

A shutdown is likely, but I remember missile strikes against Syria recently seeming inevitable, so who knows? The GOP knows it can't win on the debt ceiling. Well, at least the RNC faction. The Tea Party doesn't care, or maybe they think genuinely hurting the nation with a debt ceiling standoff counts as a victory. The lunatics are running the asylum in the House, and the ironic thing about the Senate issue is that Cruz partially aligns with the RNC faction; while the RNC doesn't want this fight at all, they certainly don't want it in the Senate. Then again, that's why they don't want the fight at all; there is no way to win in the Senate, which means it all comes back to the House, where a Tea Party win is a loss for the RNC. I mean, sure, it's bad for everyone, but they're the RNC, and the only reason everyone else matters is because some of those people are voters, and the RNC knows the GOP simply cannot win this fight.

There is that joke, you know. And the Republican will tell you government doesn't work, and then he gets elected, and then he proves it.

Of course government doesn't work if your only purpose is to prevent government from working.

Just like your car isn't going to get however many miles to the gallon if the first thing you do is shoot the gas tank with a fifty calbier round.

Just sayin'.
____________________

Notes:

Seitz-Wald, Alex. "Republican Civil War Over Obamacare Explodes on Twitter". National Journal. September 18, 2013. NationalJournal.com. September 19, 2013. http://www.nationaljournal.com/cong...r-over-obamacare-explodes-on-twitter-20130918

After years of spouting off irresponsible rhetoric with a good dose of chicken little the sky is falling the Repubs have created a monster. This monster wants nothing more than to destabilize government in the hopes of decentralizing it. The Old Guard Repubs never intended those dummies that actually believed that rhetoric and fear mongering to actually organize into a cohesive group that could hijack their party. May the lesser of two evils win, I am pulling for the phony Old Guard as opposed to the treasonous tea party. What could we expect if the Tea Party actually did succeed in hijacking the Republican party? All we know for sure is that they know how to be obstructionists and reactionaries.

To think that an (D) African American President caused all this, what happens when a (D)woman wins POTUS?

 

[Tiassa]

Puzzled Pieces

Puzzled Pieces

In baseball jargon, a curveball is a hook or a hammer, depending on various factors. But I always preferred the slider. Few can throw a proper knuckleball.

There is no proper baseball jargon for Speaker Boehner's latest pitch:

In case there's any lingering confusion, let's make the facts plain. Obama has said he's open to compromises on the budget; he's open to compromises on taxes and spending; he's open to compromises on the sequestration cuts; he's even open to compromises on immigration, the farm bill, and just about everything else. But when Republicans threaten to trash the economy and the full faith and credit of the United States—deliberately and for no reason—then the president will engage in this kind of political hostage standoff.

Boehner somehow has convinced himself that there's nothing unreasonable about threatening to push the nation into default on purpose, but it's outrageous for Obama to rule out negotiations.

The strategy clearly intends to exploit public confusion. If many Americans believe policymakers aren't open to compromise, then maybe they'll hear about the president rejecting negotiations and assume Obama's the bad guy—as opposed to, say, the folks who are holding the nation hostage.

But here's the kicker: if the president changed his mind immediately, and announced he'd start making concessions if Republicans ruled out hurting Americans on purpose, Boehner said yesterday he wouldn't join Obama at the negotiating table.

If you think I'm kidding, I'm really not.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) wants President Obama to negotiate on the debt ceiling—just not with him.

The same day he castigated Obama for being more willing to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin than Congress, Boehner said he had no intention of returning to the one-on-one grand bargain talks he pursued with Obama in 2011.

"I'm not doing that," Boehner told reporters. "The House is going to pass a bill. We expect the Senate to pass a bill. I would guess the president would engage with the majority leader over there if he so desires," the Speaker added, referring to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).​

Got that? In other words, over the course of a single day, the weak and easily confused House Speaker effectively told Americans, "I'm outraged Obama won't negotiate with me," which was then immediately followed by, "I refuse to negotiate with the president."

And then best of all, let's say Boehner changed his mind and agreed to negotiate with Obama. And let's also say the president, terrified of what radicalized Republicans might do to the country, also agreed to make concessions. Even then, it wouldn't really matter—Obama knows that Boehner doesn't really control the House of Representatives anymore, so even if the two struck a grand bargain, there's no reason to think the Speaker could deliver the necessary votes.

(Benen)​

No, really. What the hell? What do you even call that pitch?
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "The Nature of Negotiations". The Maddow Blog. September 20, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. September 20, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/20/20603130-the-nature-of-negotiations

 

[Billy T]

The House just voted:

In today’s 230-189 vote, the House backed a stopgap measure to fund government operations after current authority expires. The legislation preserves across-the-board spending cuts at an annual rate of $986.3 billion and permanently defunds the Affordable Care Act.

The U.S. House set up what could be a prolonged showdown with the Senate and White House, voting to finance the federal government through Dec. 15 and choke off funding for President Barack Obama’s health-care law.

Sept. 20 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama says congressional Republicans are focused right now on politics, not what is best for middle-class Americans. He spoke today at a Ford Motor Co. plant in a suburb of Kansas City, Missouri.

The House spending measure also includes a provision directing the Treasury on how to prioritize payments if the debt ceiling is breached. ...
House Republicans said they wouldn’t accept Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to remove the health-care language from the bill next week and warned of a temporary government shutdown after the fiscal year ends Sept. 30.

“We’ll add some other things that they hate and make them eat that, and we’ll play this game up until either Sept. 30, Oct. 3, somewhere in between,” said first-term Representative Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican. “Harry Reid’s going to realize we’re serious and hopefully at that point, he’ll begin to negotiate with us.”

Above from: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-20/house-passes-spending-bill-seeking-to-stop-health-law.html

 

[Billy T]

... To think that an (D) African American President caused all this, ...

NO! GWB caused all this. I.e. his stupid decisions made it possible for me to predict while he still had two years as POTUS, a run-on-the dollar was coming "on or before Halloween 2014" to be quickly (6 months or so) by world's worse depression in US and EU, but only recession in China and suppliers of food stock, energy and raw materials that China imports.

The hard economic times and growing, unpayable debt (except by dollar devaluation / bad inflation) is reason for the extreme political fighting - wanting to avoid blame. Yes, most will in ignorance of the true cause blame Obama, but as I have stated for many years: It is GWB's depression that is coming.

 

[quinnsong]

NO! GWB caused all this. I.e. his stupid decisions made it possible for me to predict while he still had two years a POTUS, a run-on-the dollar was coming "on or before Halloween 2014."

The hard economic times and growing, unpayable debt (except by dollar devaluation / bad inflation) is reason for the extreme political fighting - wanting to avoid blame. Yes, most will in ignorance of the true cause blame Obama, but as I have stated for year: It is GWB's depression that is coming.

Oh I totally agree with you!

Obama is the real reason for the Tea Party activism and obstructionism, that was my point. Sorry if I was not clear on that. It was bad enough that Americans elected a Democrat but an African American one is just not resting well for a part of our electorate and they want to make damn sure Obama goes down in history as a terrible President, hoping to ensure it will not happen again. I cannot wait to see their reaction if Hillary wins in 2016! Can you imagine first an African American and then a woman. The Tea Party's world is crumbling all around them and they are not going down without a fight.

In yesteryear Obama's policies would have been in line with many moderate Republicans, so the only answer I can come up with as to why the Tea Party is willing to cause an economic crisis is pure racism. The nastiness has gone way beyond politics as usual.

 

[Anew]

gee I've heard of this quote 'government shut down' stuff for a couple of years now,, that quote is frightening. I think Obama is an amazing man for his exceeding efforts in his years as president. I like the idea of Hillary Clinton as next president