Defunding Obamacare: GOP Is “Playing with Fire”

[georges]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...e-attack-obamacare-chris-moody-145043225.html
How far will Republicans go to defund Obamacare?

That’s the key question in Washington this week. The House passed a budget bill last Friday that would fund the government through Dec. 15. The bill excludes spending for the Affordable Care Act, the federal health care legislation that became law three years ago, setting the state for a major bipartisan fight in the Senate this week.

Related: DC Budget Showdown: Ugly, Familiar, Avoidable

If Congress and President Obama cannot agree on a continuing budget resolution before Oct. 1, the federal government will partially shut down. (The last time the government was forced to close was late 1995/early 1996, when President Clinton and congressional leaders could not compromise on a spending bill. That partial shutdown lasted 21 days.)

Related: Government Shutdown Risk is Real as Republican Minority "Blackmails' the House: Holtz-Eakin

Congress and the White House are also at odds over raising the debt ceiling – the government’s legal authority to borrow more money. The debt limit, which currently stands at $16.7 trillion, expires in mid-October; it has been raised 13 times since 2001. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew admonished Congress last week for playing games with the nation’s finances.

"Trying to time a debt limit increase to the last minute could be very dangerous," Lew said. "Make no mistake: If Congress does not act and the U.S. suddenly cannot pay its bills, the repercussions could be serious. The impact on families and businesses could be significant. Investors losing confidence in the full faith and credit of the United States could cause damage to our economy."

Yahoo News political reporter Chris Moody tells The Daily Ticker that Republicans are “playing with fire” by using the debt ceiling and the budget as mechanisms for delaying or permanently repealing the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Republicans are very determined to postpone Obamacare, even if a defunding measure will not pass in the Senate; Moody expects a “real fight” over the issue in the coming days and weeks.

“Republicans are shooting for the stars and hoping to get the moon here,” he says. A delay in the implementation of Obamacare “is the real sweet spot. We could quite possibly see an old-fashioned filibuster where guys like Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Ted Cruz stand on the [Senate] floor for hours and hours.”

Pres. Obama reiterated his refusal to negotiate with GOP leaders over raising the debt limit this weekend.

“Let me say as clearly as I can: It is not going to happen. We have come too far. We have overcome far darker threats than those,” Obama said Saturday at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.

Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group, wrote in a note to clients Monday morning that there will be a “shutdown drama” later this week when the Senate addresses its stopgap spending bill (the House is scheduled to be in recess until Friday). But in the meantime, “the GOP can keep stirring the pot, using this and the debt ceiling battle as a platform against Obamacare,” he says. “Republicans [are] preparing a laundry list of provisions tied to the debt ceiling – entitlement cuts, Keystone pipeline, tax reform, etc” – to force Obama’s hand.

And in the end, the White House could offer concessions to avoid a shutdown or a default on the nation’s debt.

“Republicans think [Obama] is bluffing” about not negotiating, adds Moody.Defunding Obamacare: GOP Is “Playing with Fire”

 

[Mayhem]

Republican Party opposing Obamacare = :suicide:

 

[Rey C.]

The last time the Repubs did this, it resulted in the credit ratings for the U.S. being cut. Despite revisionist storytelling by far-right members of the GOP, the ratings were not cut because the U.S. was spending too much money or had too large a deficit as a percentage of GDP. The credit rating was cut because of the childish antics of the teabaggers in the House. The debt ceiling primarily has to do with money which has either already been spent or has been contractually spoken for (think interest payments on debt instruments). This is akin to a husband and wife fighting about whether or not to pay the mortgage next month because he has spent too much on car parts and she has spent too much on shoes over the past year. If you were a loan officer at Bank of America, would you want to lend more money to these two geniuses, without bumping up the interest rate???

So what these morons don't get (in addition to fifty other things) is if they do anything which harms the credit rating of the U.S., that in itself raises borrowing costs for ALL of our current, as well as future debt, and that leads to higher government spending. Before a person can be sworn into Congress, they should have to pass a basic math test with at least a C-. I'm more than fine with finding ways to cut government spending. But risking default, and arguing about whether or not to pay what has already been spent, just to attack something that the teabaggers have become obsessed with, is beyond stupid.

 

[mikexmoran]

It is an interesting strategy. On one hand it is within their right to do so and it is the most representative body. We can mock them all we want, but we did put them there and they believe they have a message.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. You know it will not get past the Senate and if it did Obama would veto it. Even if they somehow were able to get it through all of that, Obama could still fund it through discretionary spending. Is this really something you want to get symbolic with? Probably not.

It is law. It should be treated that way. If you want to remove it, do it right. I'm not for either the Congress or the executive looking to use their authority to pick and choose which laws are supported. They have both done it and I have equal contempt for the move.

On a tangential topic, I like what Larry Kudlow said. He is often wrong (like everyone reading this and myself), but he is thoughtful.

"Non-Germane President Obama
He’d rather talk to Iran than John Boehner.
By Lawrence Kudlow

One of the biggest mistakes President Obama is making in the current debate over the threat of a government shutdown and the failure to raise the debt ceiling is his repeated and stubborn refusal to negotiate. In speech after speech, Obama crusades against negotiation. Has anyone ever seen anything like this? He’s the president. Supposedly, he’s the chief executive. But Obama doesn’t want to dirty his hands by talking to Republican congressional leaders.

Now, this is an odd paradigm given the fact that the president and his lieutenants are willing to negotiate with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Syria’s Bashar Assad, and most recently Iranian president Rouhani Hassan. A motley crew at best, and a bunch of dictatorial mass-killing thugs in truth.

What does this say about the president’s strategy for the economic health and wealth of his own country, the United States of America?. . ."

 

[Rey C.]

To be honest, I can see how Obama would rather talk to Iran than Boehner. At least with the Iranians there is some measure of rational thinking (relatively speaking). But as much as I dislike and do not respect Boehner (he will surely go down as one of the most ineffective and incompetent Speakers in U.S. history), I admit that he is in an unenviable position. Trying to lead and talk sense to the Taliban Tea Party members of the House isn't a job that I would wish on anyone. It must be like trying to herd cats on acid. But he wanted the big chair and now he's got it (though both Democrats and far right Republicans seem to want him out).

Most police agencies have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. So the way I see it, as long as the radical right wants to hold the nation hostage under the threat of a government shutdown and a debt default in order to get what they want, do not talk to them. Do not even acknowledge their nonsensical demands. Even though it would cause the nation serious long term fiscal damage, at some point the electorate needs to wake up to how dangerous and self-centered these radicals are. If they're threatening to shoot the baby, let them shoot the baby. Their day in the sun, where they are politically relevant, will be over once and for all... FINALLY!

 

[Jack Davenport]

So let's make sure I am following you here. The Speaker who isn't a Tea Party enthusiast but is a leader within his party and has to keep his job every 2 years by first being re-elected by his district and then by house repubs needs to give in more to the president but tell the repubs to go fuck themselves? And he is not even the ideologue that you claim to despise so much. Rey you rant and rave constantly about "Teabaggers" running the party and will occasionally throw in some criticism about dems but that is mainly to try and give the appearance that you are the true independent that you say that you are. I have read enough of your postings by now to know that although dems are just as complicit in this fvcked up government as any repub they don't draw the ire that repubs do or the bold capital letters in your responses because you really are a dem at heart. That's fine but the independent who could stomach the GOP if they only threw out the teabaggers routine is getting tiresome. Boehner ain't no teabagger yet you don't like him either.

So it is obvious they will never earn any significant support from you so why should they try?

 

[Mariahxxx]

this climate of extreme division between the parties is sickening. the republicans are putting party first and the people somewhere down the line after corporate america and special interests. to say they are going to shut down the government instead of agreeing on something that the people want? if they look at the last 2 elections, they got their teethed kicked in. health care was a platform of the first teeth kicking and already law by the second and strangely, they still got a LOT more votes nationwide than the republicans did. how do you explain that? sure the rural areas and gerrymandered districts kept their reps, but overall the democrats demolished the republicans in the last 2 elections with health care out in the open.

so to shut down the government and be so obsessed with this law, that the fucking people want! is absolutely detrimental to the republican cause, which they cannot afford to lose another vote.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I am convinced that you post just to see yourself post. What the people want? Teeth kicked in? Maybe in the presidential election but the GOP kicked the ever living shit out of the dems in 2010 and kept the house in 2012.They also have been gaining the fuck out of governorships. The American people wanted gridlock and they got it. Early indications are that they will do well in the 2014 mid terms too. Even the AFL-CI0 are starting to balk at Obamacare and when that happens political fortunes turn.

 

[Mariahxxx]

dude you need to add to your reading a bit. in 2012 elections, the Democrats got MORE votes than the republicans. look it up. In the House elections, according to ThinkProgress, 53,952,240 votes were cast for Democratic candidates, while Republican candidates received 53,402,643.
In Pennsylvania, for example, President Barack Obama received 52 percent of the vote, compared with Mitt Romney's 46.8 percent total. However, Democrats won only five of the state's 18 seats in the House of Representatives. the state's congressional districts have been gerrymandered to keep suburban and rural areas red. Ohio shows a similar trend, with just four of the state's 16 seats going blue.

you really believe the american people want gridlock? or the republican americans? the right has become the party of hate and resistance and refusal to compromise. it's embarrassing and yet people like yourself continue to excuse it and back it and show support for it? Why? you aren't a dumb guy. you surely don't think our national credit rating should be lowered so that poor people can't get medicine they can't afford do you? I can't see that unless you just refuse to budge even when things make sense or harm the greater good, which is absolutely what the republicans are currently doing. the greater good is not even being considered.

and yes teeth kicked in. what was the tally of the presidential election in 08 and then in 2012? significantly growing margins to the left.

as far as republicans gaining its simply because of geography and gerrymandering and not to mention the Voting Rights Act which was absolutely implemented to reduce minority

if there isn't a shrinking base then why did they do the internal audit?

 

[mikexmoran]

- - - Updated - - -

To be honest, I can see how Obama would rather talk to Iran than Boehner. At least with the Iranians there is some measure of rational thinking (relatively speaking). But as much as I dislike and do not respect Boehner (he will surely go down as one of the most ineffective and incompetent Speakers in U.S. history), I admit that he is in an unenviable position. Trying to lead and talk sense to the Taliban Tea Party members of the House isn't a job that I would wish on anyone. It must be like trying to herd cats on acid. But he wanted the big chair and now he's got it (though both Democrats and far right Republicans seem to want him out).

Most police agencies have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. So the way I see it, as long as the radical right wants to hold the nation hostage under the threat of a government shutdown and a debt default in order to get what they want, do not talk to them. Do not even acknowledge their nonsensical demands. Even though it would cause the nation serious long term fiscal damage, at some point the electorate needs to wake up to how dangerous and self-centered these radicals are. If they're threatening to shoot the baby, let them shoot the baby. Their day in the sun, where they are politically relevant, will be over once and for all... FINALLY!

I'm a little confused. John Boehner isn't a member of a terrorist organization (as far as I'm aware). He is the Speaker of the House of the US House of Representatives.

I understand the hyperbole. I don't understand the context. Why would we give John Boehner or Barrack Obama get a free pass because they have a difficult party to deal with or an opposition party that is taking a hard line? I take the stance I do because I expect more and want more for my money from all of them.

I'm ok with placing blame with the House. Fine, done.

However, as the executive, he is leading a government that keeps heading down this road. He can't seem to control it and it has done some damage. I would fire him if he worked for me because of this.

I would also fire Boehner.

I agree that the action of the House is radical. Passing a bill to not support a law is radical (the executive branch has done similar and it is not good either). Responding with politics is not doing your job. Perhaps Obama has better ideas, but he is in over his head with the management of it.

My opinion (I believe) differs from your in only that I hold them BOTH accountable and I really don't care about anything other than the final result. I don't care to give into either dull performance by agreeing with either side. Lowering the bar is not going to fix things.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Milano talking about gerrymandering like it is some new evil concept developed by the GOP. When parties control state govenment they gerrymander. Dems and repubs alike. Go to California New York and see if the lines aren't drawn to benefit dem majorities. All politics are local and if repubs have been able to gerrymander because they are becoming majorities now in certain states. This evidence flies in the face of your argument. Of course Dems got more votes in the last presidential election, their candidate won handily. But the Repubs still kept the house so that means that Americans liked the gridlock and I am willing to bet they will vote for the status quo in 2014 also. You got a long ways to go before you enjoy the democratic supermajority in every aspect of American politics sis.

 

[mikexmoran]

Milano talking about gerrymandering like it is some new evil concept developed by the GOP. When parties control state govenment they gerrymander. Dems and repubs alike. Go to California New York and see if the lines aren't drawn to benefit dem majorities. All politics are local and if repubs have been able to gerrymander because they are becoming majorities now in certain states. This evidence flies in the face of your argument. Of course Dems got more votes in the last presidential election, their candidate won handily. But the Repubs still kept the house so that means that Americans liked the gridlock and I am willing to bet they will vote for the status quo in 2014 also. You got a long ways to go before you enjoy the democratic supermajority in every aspect of American politics sis.

I didn't see the post that I think you're responding to because of the block I put in, but I think your post is a good one. Gerrymandering and the drawing of district lines is pretty much a corrupt process, but is part of the process until it is changed by law.

Yes the people voted in the President. The people also voted in the House. (...and the Senate) Is the House abusing its Republican majority leaning? Yes, if you care to define it as abuse. Did the government abuse its Democratic majority leaning when it passed the Affordable Health Care Act? Under the same definition, yes. (If you want to tell me that it pass with bipartisan approval, I'll agree to that and tell you that the repeal passed the House vote with bipartisan approval as well.) It politics. I'm not blind or an idiot. I'm tired of it.

I'll add to my point - I don't think the House is heading in a good direction. I think I was clear on this.

The President needs to manage through this. He still has time and may be handling it beautifully. However, last time I do not think it was handled well at all (by the house or president).

 

[Mariahxxx]

again, the Dems got MORE VOTES in the house elections. did you not read that part? its not an opinion or liberal nonsense, it's fact the right has even admitted to. again, if they are doing so well why was there an internal audit done to stop the bleeding? nationwide in ALL elections, there are more democrats voting democrat. that is a fact. because the rural areas and the minority access and pot laws taking away millions of people's ability to vote, the right has seen growth in certain areas. but overall, the right is shrinking into concentrated pockets. that is a fact.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I never said they were doing wonderfully. I SAID that they still control the house. And the dems lost control in only 4 years after being out of the majority for 12 years. That is proof positive that Americans did not feel comfortable with dems having complete control of power. History has not been kind to presidents during the second term mid term elections either. Just about all of the tea leaves you have been reading have been in the lart 10 years or so wherear I have been voting in elections since 1984.

 

[Mariahxxx]

Im leaving for LA for 8 days in the morning so I hope you can carry on without me here I can just feel the groans and eye rolls as this is read!

 

[Jack Davenport]

Yes Mariah. Your absence will do nothing but contribute to the FreeOnes ennui we are experiencing right now.

 

[Rey C.]

- - - Updated - - -



I'm a little confused. John Boehner isn't a member of a terrorist organization (as far as I'm aware). He is the Speaker of the House of the US House of Representatives.

I understand the hyperbole. I don't understand the context. Why would we give John Boehner or Barrack Obama get a free pass because they have a difficult party to deal with or an opposition party that is taking a hard line? I take the stance I do because I expect more and want more for my money from all of them.

I'm ok with placing blame with the House. Fine, done.

However, as the executive, he is leading a government that keeps heading down this road. He can't seem to control it and it has done some damage. I would fire him if he worked for me because of this.

I would also fire Boehner.

I agree that the action of the House is radical. Passing a bill to not support a law is radical (the executive branch has done similar and it is not good either). Responding with politics is not doing your job. Perhaps Obama has better ideas, but he is in over his head with the management of it.

My opinion (I believe) differs from your in only that I hold them BOTH accountable and I really don't care about anything other than the final result. I don't care to give into either dull performance by agreeing with either side. Lowering the bar is not going to fix things.

My point in thumping Boehner is that he has allowed himself to be bullied by this (very) vocal minority of TEA Party radicals. From what I know of him, he is actually not radical at all in his views... or at least he hasn't been in the past. While they could certainly make his life (as Speaker) difficult, they do not have the votes to oust him (AFAIK). But his desire to be Speaker, and fear of losing that post, seems to prevent him from making a stand against these bomb throwers. The public's ratings of Congress under his leadership pretty well speaks for itself. He's making Pelosi look capable and that's really saying something.

With more effective leadership from both parties, assuming a coalition of bipartisan moderates could find a voice (and some bravery), spending could be cut, revenues (not just taxes) could be found and then, not only would we not have to hear about the debt ceiling very year, we could also begin to eliminate the deficit and attack the debt.

 

[Rey C.]

So let's make sure I am following you here. The Speaker who isn't a Tea Party enthusiast but is a leader within his party and has to keep his job every 2 years by first being re-elected by his district and then by house repubs needs to give in more to the president but tell the repubs to go fuck themselves? And he is not even the ideologue that you claim to despise so much. Rey you rant and rave constantly about "Teabaggers" running the party and will occasionally throw in some criticism about dems but that is mainly to try and give the appearance that you are the true independent that you say that you are. I have read enough of your postings by now to know that although dems are just as complicit in this fvcked up government as any repub they don't draw the ire that repubs do or the bold capital letters in your responses because you really are a dem at heart. That's fine but the independent who could stomach the GOP if they only threw out the teabaggers routine is getting tiresome. Boehner ain't no teabagger yet you don't like him either.

So it is obvious they will never earn any significant support from you so why should they try?

In your bifurcated world, since I am definitely not a Republican, then yes, of course I am a Democrat. That's the only other option there is, right? And to a radical feminist, since I also make fun of that lot, I am a Republican, a male chauvinist and a misogynist. Since I am opposed to Zionism, to those who support that mindset, I must be a Nazi and a Hitler lover. I guess when everything is either chocolate or vanilla in a person's world, it does make things easier to figure out.

Neither party will ever earn any significant support from me. The best either can ever hope for is that I may make fun of one more than the other. And right now, the GOP seems to have a collection of clown shoes that the Dems can't quite fill - though they do seem to try from time to time. But in my view, anyone who supports the interests of a political party over the interests of the republic is never going to be part of any solution, only part of the underlying problem. You can blame my belief in that theory on some old dude named George Washington.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Publicity stunt. Tea Party wanted a little face time.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Ok Rey. I shall wait for a democrat poster to have their toes stepped on so much by one of your posts that they accuse you of siding with the evil republicans. Although I don't foresee them forming a line to do so.