Obama blasts ‘Republican shutdown,’ defends Obamacare

[BigGameDamian]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-to-make-12-25-p-m--statement-134130294.html

President Barack Obama on Tuesday defiantly declared that “this Republican shutdown” risks hurting the fragile economy and pressed the House GOP to abandon its “ideological crusade” against Obamacare.

“This Republican shutdown did not have to happen,” Obama said in the Rose Garden, surrounded by a dozen Americans who stand to benefit from his landmark health care overhaul.

“They’ve shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans,” he charged. "This, more than anything else, seems to be what the Republican Party stands for these days. I know it's strange that one party would make keeping people uninsured the centerpiece of their agenda, but that apparently is what it is."

Obama pointed to the last partial government shutdown, in 1996, and warned that a closure will hurt the economy.

“And we know that the longer this shutdown continues, the worse the effects will be — more families will be hurt, more businesses will be harmed,” he said. “So once again, I urge House Republicans to reopen the government, restart the services Americans depend on and allow the public servants who have been sent home to return to work.”

Obama directed those listening to www.healthcare.gov if they want to apply for health care exchanges where they can buy insurance, saying it’s time to “get America covered, once and for all.”

The president allowed that the site had suffered glitches — but portrayed it as victim of its own success, saying more than 1 million people visited the site before 7 a.m.

“We're going to be speeding things up in the next few hours to handle all of this demand that exceeds anything that we had expected,” Obama said. “Consider that just a couple of weeks ago, Apple rolled out a new mobile operating system, and within days, they found a glitch, so they fixed it. I don't remember anybody suggesting Apple should stop selling iPhones or iPads or threatening to shut down the company if they didn't. That's not how we do things in America. We don't actively root for failure.”

But House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R.-Calif., said the problems showed the law's underlying failures.

"Americans are attempting to purchase health insurance on Obamacare exchanges and are being met with crashing websites, missing price information, confusing forms and in some cases, exchanges that had to delay their start date because they aren’t ready yet," Issa said in a statement. "These ‘glitches,’ which the President is trying to brush off, reveal how totally unprepared the government is for this launch even with three and a half years to prepare. This is nothing, however, compared to the potentially irreversible damage the law threatens in the long term."

As he began his remarks, Obama’s microphone generated feedback, leading him to worry about a technical glitch. “Can everybody hear me? Mic work?”

 

[magnifier661]

Wait Kingspeed said the House Voted this in?

 

[HailBlazers]

Obama pointed to the last partial government shutdown, in 1996, and warned that a closure will hurt the economy.

“And we know that the longer this shutdown continues, the worse the effects will be — more families will be hurt, more businesses will be harmed,” he said.”

Talk about Ironic. Everything that Mr. President says about the shutdown is exactly what the affordable care act will do to this country.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

government shutdown.. Park a forklift in the entrance of the Lincoln memorial to keep people out, "Close" The WW2 memorial and deny citizen access..yeah, all at the discretion of the president..

This government needs to be shut down..

 

[oldguy]

The White House refers to the R's as terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests, and won't negotiate with them. I wonder why they would be saying FO to the Prez?

(Never mind he doesn't bat an eye at negotiating directly with Al Qaeda in Syria. In fact, he is willing to take their side in an armed conflict.)

Go Blazers

 

[DaLincolnJones]

The White House refers to the R's as terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests, and won't negotiate with them. I wonder why they would be saying FO to the Prez?

(Never mind he doesn't bat an eye at negotiating directly with Al Qaeda in Syria. In fact, he is willing to take their side in an armed conflict.)

Go Blazers

don't you know. those Muslim brotherhood guys are freedom fighters..

 

[oldguy]

The Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular" and they eschew violence, according to James Clapper, President Obama's Director of National Intelligence.

Yeah, the rebels in Libya, too. Negotiate with all those fine folks, but fuck them terrorist republicans.

(I am a little puzzled that we don't bring our guys home from Afghanistan, if the government is shut down. How does that work?)

Go Blazers

 

[Eastoff]

The White House refers to the R's as terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests, and won't negotiate with them. I wonder why they would be saying FO to the Prez?

(Never mind he doesn't bat an eye at negotiating directly with Al Qaeda in Syria. In fact, he is willing to take their side in an armed conflict.)

Go Blazers

Or that says that the Al Qaeda fighters and the Iranians are more reasonable that Republicans.

 

[Eastoff]

I am a little puzzled that we don't bring our guys home from Afghanistan, if the government is shut down. How does that work?

In the 70s a judge said EVERYTHING has to stop. Then a few years later a shutdown occurred again and he said OK OK The President gets to decide if somethings can be exempt in the case of them being vital to our country functioning.

 

[Eastoff]

For the record, let's just examine the way laws work. They pass both parts of congress and the president signs them into law. Then the supreme court could rule these laws unconstitutional (which they ruled they were constitutional). Then if congress doesn't like an old law, they can repeal the law (which they couldn't). So when in doubt, the President clearly has to compromise and let the temper tantrum go and concede, NO F'ing WAY.

 

[julius]

For the record, let's just examine the way laws work. They pass both parts of congress and the president signs them into law. Then the supreme court could rule these laws unconstitutional (which they ruled they were constitutional). Then if congress doesn't like an old law, they can repeal the law (which they couldn't). So when in doubt, the President clearly has to compromise and let the temper tantrum go and concede, NO F'ing WAY.

I just hope it doesn't set a precedent for how congress and the house act. They've both done nothing (their own doing) but are allowed to blame the president instead of doing something about it.

They don't like a law? Well, just threaten to shut down the government if you (in the minority) don't get 100% of your way.

Can you imagine how the conservatives on this board would be if this was done by the democrats and liberals in government? It would be Armageddon. As for the left on the board, we're kind of like "meh. the government screwed things up so bad, I'm not surprised they're cutting off their nose to spite their face"

 

[magnifier661]

I just hope it doesn't set a precedent for how congress and the house act. They've both done nothing (their own doing) but are allowed to blame the president instead of doing something about it.

They don't like a law? Well, just threaten to shut down the government if you (in the minority) don't get 100% of your way.

Can you imagine how the conservatives on this board would be if this was done by the democrats and liberals in government? It would be Armageddon. As for the left on the board, we're kind of like "meh. the government screwed things up so bad, I'm not surprised they're cutting off their nose to spite their face"

I can and nothing happened when Clinton did this years ago.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Can you imagine how the conservatives on this board would be if this was done by the democrats and liberals in government? It would be Armageddon. As for the left on the board, we're kind of like "meh. the government screwed things up so bad, I'm not surprised they're cutting off their nose to spite their face"

I'd just like to point out that when PPACA was originally passed, without having been read by anyone who actually voted for it, "this was done by the democrats and liberals in government". When the Debt Ceiling "compromise" was agreed to, leading to the Patty Murray Sequestration Fiasco, it was conservatives (and Tea Partiers) giving in to the "democrats and liberals in government".

After those two points in recent history, I don't see the Tea Party Caucus conceding a damn thing. For better or worse. This is Armageddon for someone who believes in big government. And PPACA is a front. If they signed it tomorrow, the government would shut down in two weeks b/c of the new Debt Ceiling anyway, which is way more important than funding (or not) PPACA and will be felt by many more Americans.

I wish it'd be easy to say "meh", but I think the "meh" attitude (by everyone, not just one side or the other) has contributed to where we are right now. And one group (those who elected the Tea Party with their mandate, and those who are supporting them now) are not saying "meh" any more.

To answer oldguy's question, we're ordered to report to work (AWOL/UA charges apply if you don't). The President has said that we will get our October 15th paycheck (for time worked between Oct 1-14), "pending money being available in the Treasury". While I think that Oct. 15 will be fine, if the Debt Ceiling hits (Oct 17, iirc) there may not be money in the Treasury on the 18th.

Though over here, the State Department has been told that they cannot allow anyone to move off-base, because (no shit) "it would look bad if someone was injured or killed during the shutdown". (and I used quotes because that's the actual quote from State Dept leadership here)

 

[Eastoff]

After those two points in recent history, I don't see the Tea Party Caucus conceding a damn thing. For better or worse. This is Armageddon for someone who believes in big government. And PPACA is a front. If they signed it tomorrow, the government would shut down in two weeks b/c of the new Debt Ceiling anyway, which is way more important than funding (or not) PPACA and will be felt by many more Americans.

You mean all 30 or so representatives should control the 400 something house of representatives aka one half of one branch of government?

 

[e_blazer]

For the record, let's just examine the way laws work. They pass both parts of congress and the president signs them into law. Then the supreme court could rule these laws unconstitutional (which they ruled they were constitutional). Then if congress doesn't like an old law, they can repeal the law (which they couldn't). So when in doubt, the President clearly has to compromise and let the temper tantrum go and concede, NO F'ing WAY.

The ACA was pushed through during Obama's first term when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. The President said repeatedly that elections have consequences and steamrolled the bill through without any compromises to include provisions suggested by the Republicans. The bill was passed without a single Republican vote in favor. In 2012 the Republicans were able to regain control of the House. In the intervening time, the President has told the Republicans to pound sand on any suggested modifications to the ACA, has given delays and exemptions to corporations to ACA provisions through executive fiat, which is most likely illegal, and yet won't give any delays on the individual mandate despite there being major flaws and confusion in the roll out of this major piece of social engineering. So the President shouldn't be surprised this pissing match is going on. Elections do have consequences and I suspect that the Democrats would be doing exactly the same thing if the situations were reversed and a Republican president and Senate had shoved an unpalatable piece of legislation down their throats.

In my view, both sides are guilty of putting their individual agendas above the public good. The problem is that we have far too many extreme left and extreme right representatives in the House and Senate for there to ever be a bipartisan approach to really coming up with a good health care system. A Great Compromise for these clowns would be deciding to refer to each other as m'fers or honorable m'fers. I think that ultimately this mess works to the Democrats favor and the Republicans are busy blowing of their own toes instead of just waiting for this unwieldy mess to simply blow up in the Democrats face as the costs and inequities become apparent.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm not commenting on whether it's right (or good), I'm saying that expecting them to compromise (with their perceived mandate) doesn't seem logical. Especially given where we're at right now as a result of their previous compromises.

And while it may be new here, there are plenty of times (and places) where a small branch of a coalition government can get its agenda done because neither of the other sides can do so on their own.

In my opinion, it's not 30 reps shutting down the 435-member house. It's the other 400 not being able to figure something out that's better. And you can't let the Senate off. If they could cobble something palatable enough for half-plus-one of the House to agree on, then this could be solved that way. To blame the Tea Party Caucus is letting 500+ members of Congress off the hook.

Honestly, even if I was allowed to, I wouldn't blame the President much in this. It's not his job to push legislation. Even if he was standing in Pelosi/Boehner's office and screaming at them to "Pass Bill X" it's their job to say, "we're the legislative branch. Go execute what we give you".

 

[Eastoff]

Firstly, I want to say I think we basically agree on the overall points you made.

And while it may be new here, there are plenty of times (and places) where a small branch of a coalition government can get its agenda done because neither of the other sides can do so on their own.

Isn't this literally how the Nazi party came to power?

In my opinion, it's not 30 reps shutting down the 435-member house. It's the other 400 not being able to figure something out that's better. And you can't let the Senate off. If they could cobble something palatable enough for half-plus-one of the House to agree on, then this could be solved that way. To blame the Tea Party Caucus is letting 500+ members of Congress off the hook.

I agree it's not fair to let the rest off the hook; I think it's fair for the tea party representatives to stand up for their caucus, that is their job. But there has been attempts to get that half-plus-one bill passed and Boehner is not allowing it to come to a vote, as far as I have heard.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think that ultimately this mess works to the Democrats favor and the Republicans are busy blowing of their own toes instead of just waiting for this unwieldy mess to simply blow up in the Democrats face as the costs and inequities become apparent.

I differ here. It doesn't matter if an unwieldy mess blows up--history has shown (um, Medicaid?) that once a piece of social "safety net" legislation is applied, (even small things like "Unemployment Insurance increases") it's almost impossible to get them rolled back, or enough taxes enacted to make them solvent. In a vacuum, my preference as a voter is that a piece of legislation is fought over, examined, costed-out, worst-case and best-case scenarios applied, etc before it becomes law, because it's probably not coming off the books even if it really, REALLY sucks. (This obviously isn't a vacuum, but as I've said, it's kind of a proxy front to the Debt Ceiling issue coming up). That didn't happen with PPACA originally. To a bunch of American voters, that was so wrong that they elected

I'll beat the dead horse again....Medicare/caid OVERRUNS (not "budget") are larger than the DoD and DHS combined. But if you attempt to bring up "medicare/caid reform" you get people lobbying from all over not to cut a cent (see: AARP, 2012 elections). Medicare/caid has been an unwieldy, unsustainable mess for at least since Clinton was president, and there have been no changes. No additional taxes to pay for it proposed...no cuts or rollbacks to the system implemented, no regulations on cost. Just running up debt as needed to pay whatever's needed.

As another point in the "meh" generation, this could easily have happened in 2006-07 if the Democrats really wanted to stop the war in Iraq. Or even easier in 2009, if they wanted to bring all the troops home (or get out of Gitmo, or sign Kyoto, or do whatever principled issue they really believed in and/or their constituency wanted). Instead, PPACA was passed without reading. They said "meh" to wars, and now are shocked when the Tea Party isn't saying "meh" to PPACA or the Debt Ceiling. I just find it odd that PPACA is where they're standing their ground.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Firstly, I want to say I think we basically agree on the overall points you made. Isn't this literally how the Nazi party came to power?

In a manner of speaking, sort of. It was more von Papen's allowal of the SA to do voter intimidation to get their plurality bloc, and once there, combining with the Social Democrats, Catholic Center and Communists to impasse and then shut down the government. The German solution at that point was that Hindenburg had to dissolve the government and hold new elections in November--where the SA was even more able to intimidate the Communists and Social Democrats into staying away from the polls and giving Hitler the Presidency. The rest is history.

I agree it's not fair to let the rest off the hook; I think it's fair for the tea party representatives to stand up for their caucus, that is their job. But there has been attempts to get that half-plus-one bill passed and Boehner is not allowing it to come to a vote, as far as I have heard.

I hadn't heard that. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that the R's have put themselves in the position (especially the R's in the House) where they need the Tea Party Caucus much more than the TPC needs the R's. I would not be shocked to see some kind of Libertarian/TPC unholy alliance in the next 6 years, regardless of how this plays out this week.

 

[e_blazer]

I differ here. It doesn't matter if an unwieldy mess blows up--history has shown (um, Medicaid?) that once a piece of social "safety net" legislation is applied, (even small things like "Unemployment Insurance increases") it's almost impossible to get them rolled back, or enough taxes enacted to make them solvent.

I think that this is different from Medicaid in that it directly impacts a smaller segment of the population. Everyone who lives long enough will eventually retire and fall under Medicare provisions and benefits. The ACA only directly provides coverage for about 10% of the population. When those who aren't receiving benefits start to realize that they're paying for it in higher insurance premiums or, worse yet, start getting their hours reduced so their employers don't have to cover them, there will be a lot of pissed off people. Other messes such as an inadequate supply of doctors who will accept patients on ACA plans, concerns that the out of pocket costs are still higher than most people can bear, screw-ups in what is and isn't covered, etc. will all work to undermine the thing.

 

[Eastoff]

...the R's in the House) where they need the Tea Party Caucus much more than the TPC needs the R's. I would not be shocked to see some kind of Libertarian/TPC unholy alliance in the next 6 years, regardless of how this plays out this week.

I think a more likely third party will be a new centerist R and D caucus. I think the Tea Party has their claws deep into the GOP oversight, and will actually take over the whole Republican party.

 

[BrianFromWA]

What about the R platform of the 2000's does the TPC want? If you look at their overriding principle as "small government", then they're much more in line with the Libertarian military/foreign policy step than the R's. I don't think they are caught up in the "Religious Right" fervor any more than is expedient for them. They definitely aren't of the same mind in terms of government spending and lobby privileges as the R-of-the-2000's party. What's holding them there, other than Brand Recognition?

 

[Eastoff]

I The ACA only directly provides coverage for about 10% of the population.

I think more people go through the ages of 20-25 then those that make it the age of 62. Those early age people are getting coverage from their parents which they probably weren't getting before.

 

[Eastoff]

What about the R platform of the 2000's does the TPC want? If you look at their overriding principle as "small government", then they're much more in line with the Libertarian military/foreign policy step than the R's. I don't think they are caught up in the "Religious Right" fervor any more than is expedient for them. They definitely aren't of the same mind in terms of government spending and lobby privileges as the R-of-the-2000's party. What's holding them there, other than Brand Recognition?

The big money funding the GOP. IE Koch Brothers et al.

 

[oldguy]

Or that says that the Al Qaeda fighters and the Iranians are more reasonable that Republicans.

So, you honestly think that White House making a statement like that is conducive to finding a compromise?

"You're an asshole. Now vote for exactly what I want you to, or I'll call you an asshole again." I don't see how that would work in any walk of life.

The D's rammed this legislation up everyone's ass. (Well, except for the president and the congress. God knows they don't want anything to do with that health care package.)

The R's didn't want it. The people didn't want it. The D's that passed it didn't even read the damned thing. Now we're supposed to be shocked that it is a fight to get it passed?

Go Blazers

 

[Eastoff]

So, you honestly think that White House making a statement like that is conducive to finding a compromise?

"You're an asshole. Now vote for exactly what I want you to, or I'll call you an asshole again." I don't see how that would work in any walk of life.

The D's rammed this legislation up everyone's ass. (Well, except for the president and the congress. God knows they don't want anything to do with that health care package.)

The R's didn't want it. The people didn't want it. The D's that passed it didn't even read the damned thing. Now we're supposed to be shocked that it is a fight to get it passed?

Go Blazers

That's your flaw though, it's already passed! The republicans are failing to remove it and are now trying a dangerous tactic to remove it.

 

[porkchopexpress]

So, you honestly think that White House making a statement like that is conducive to finding a compromise?

"You're an asshole. Now vote for exactly what I want you to, or I'll call you an asshole again." I don't see how that would work in any walk of life.

The D's rammed this legislation up everyone's ass. (Well, except for the president and the congress. God knows they don't want anything to do with that health care package.)

The R's didn't want it. The people didn't want it. The D's that passed it didn't even read the damned thing. Now we're supposed to be shocked that it is a fight to get it passed?

Go Blazers

You're right, the people don't want Obamacare. They want the Affordable Care Act, cause it gives you choices, where Obamacare forces you to do something!

[video=youtube;sx2scvIFGjE]

Yes, I know this is edited to show only the best (or worst) responses.

 

[oldguy]

That's your flaw though, it's already passed! The republicans are failing to remove it and are now trying a dangerous tactic to remove it.

You're right, I should have said 'funded' instead of 'passed.' (I get it that it already passed, given I said that the D's rammed (past tense) that legislation up everyone's ass.)

You didn't respond as to whether you think the White House's name-calling was appropriate and/or helpful with getting the funding approved.

Go Blazers

 

[oldguy]

You're right, the people don't want Obamacare. They want the Affordable Care Act, cause it gives you choices, where Obamacare forces you to do something!


Yes, I know this is edited to show only the best (or worst) responses.

I could be off on this, but my recollection was that something on the order high 60s% percent were against the bill.

Go Blazers

 

[Natebishop3]

[video=youtube;w9MiS9tn_r4]