The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[Joe T]

So you admit there were delays in processing things that brought revenue in at a later date and this money was in fact not "lost". Same can be said for people not visiting national parks, sure some of them probably never got a chance to return to visit but who's to say the majority of the visitors didn't go weeks or months later? None of this can be substantiated. People didn't travel to X because it was closed, so they traveled to Z instead. Airlines servicing X lost money, airlines servicing Z made money instead. The argument you are trying to stand behind is nothing more than resource allocation and you can't prove otherwise.

No. Most of that $2bn number is wages paid to federal employees for the period on which they were on furlough and did no work. Then the federal government had to eventually make it up in the future. The argument you're "refuting" exists only in your head.

So the $300m being lost per day now will eventual be caught up when the non-essential workers start working again at a more productive pace. Got it.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

When will the GOP disavow these tea party whack jobs and just let them form a 3rd party officially?

The Tea Party already had their own State of the Union response. The problem is that the backers of the tea party are also the owners of Fox News.

 

[timschochet]

I am hardly a Congressional Historian, and I am sure there have been awful examples of "leadership" in the past, however has there ever been a worse Speaker than Boehner? He seems to be doing harm to the nation, to Congress' reputation (as if it could get worse... but WAIT! THERE'S MORE!) and to his own party. He seems to have lost the faith of many in his own party and has demonstrated not only an inability to get anything done. Well, anything positive.

Historically, will be be viewed as one of the worst speakers ever?

You don't have to be a historian to remember Nancy Pelosi.

This just demonstrates once again why you are little more than a partisan hack. Even Pelosi's strongest critics acknowledge that she was remarkably effective at getting things done- she managed to keep her troops unified in a way Boehner never has. This was especially true when it came to passing TARP and Obamacare. Disagree with her politics all you want, but suggesting incompetence only highlights your own lack of knowledge.

 

[Koya]

I am hardly a Congressional Historian, and I am sure there have been awful examples of "leadership" in the past, however has there ever been a worse Speaker than Boehner? He seems to be doing harm to the nation, to Congress' reputation (as if it could get worse... but WAIT! THERE'S MORE!) and to his own party. He seems to have lost the faith of many in his own party and has demonstrated not only an inability to get anything done. Well, anything positive.

Historically, will be be viewed as one of the worst speakers ever?

You don't have to be a historian to remember Nancy Pelosi.

As Tim noted, politics aside, she could govern. She could lead. And while I can't stand her, she's light years ahead of Boehner.

 

[Joe T]

I am hardly a Congressional Historian, and I am sure there have been awful examples of "leadership" in the past, however has there ever been a worse Speaker than Boehner? He seems to be doing harm to the nation, to Congress' reputation (as if it could get worse... but WAIT! THERE'S MORE!) and to his own party. He seems to have lost the faith of many in his own party and has demonstrated not only an inability to get anything done. Well, anything positive.

Historically, will be be viewed as one of the worst speakers ever?

You don't have to be a historian to remember Nancy Pelosi.

This just demonstrates once again why you are little more than a partisan hack. Even Pelosi's strongest critics acknowledge that she was remarkably effective at getting things done- she managed to keep her troops unified in a way Boehner never has. This was especially true when it came to passing TARP and Obamacare. Disagree with her politics all you want, but suggesting incompetence only highlights your own lack of knowledge.

You may want to re-read my statement. Your lack of reading comprehension shows that not only are you a partisan hack, but a remarkably efficient posting doofus.

 

[CBusAlex]

So the $300m being lost per day now will eventual be caught up when the non-essential workers start working again at a more productive pace. Got it.

We should just shut down the government 364 days a year, so that everyone magically becomes super-productive and gets a whole year's worth of work done on that last day.

 

[cstu]

Fox News is insane. Literally jaw-dropping the things they can say with a straight face. Hannity must go home and that he gets paid so much money to say this crap. He had Ted Cruz on and they acted totally incredulous that Obama was so intent on destroying the country.

 

[cstu]

Let's make a deal that we'll open the government back up, but we get to shoot 5 Tomahawk missiles into Syria. Win-win.

Obama's Counter offer: We want to start a federal gun registration database that is maintained by federally licensed gun sellers and is accessible to all law enforcement agencies, it will be paid for by a gun/bullet tax that will be modeled after the tobacco tax. Also we want the immediate removal of all corporate welfare provisions and special interest tax breaks.

As a Lebanese person, this doesn't help deal with my hatred for Syria. I'd decline this offer.

 

[Joe T]

So the $300m being lost per day now will eventual be caught up when the non-essential workers start working again at a more productive pace. Got it.

We should just shut down the government 364 days a year, so that everyone magically becomes super-productive and gets a whole year's worth of work done on that last day.

That would be nice, but for now only non-essential personnel are shut down. A fact that somehow keeps getting missed.

 

[CBusAlex]

We should just shut down the government 364 days a year, so that everyone magically becomes super-productive and gets a whole year's worth of work done on that last day.

That would be nice

When you find yourself agreeing with a plan that explicitly relies on "magic" to work, you should probably take a step back and re-examine your thought processes.

 

[TxBuckeye]

The government is bloated, it's too large, sorry you disagree and you rely on them for your paycheck, but that doesn't change my views that it's employees shouldn't be entitled to bullet proof job security when the rest of the country is hurting, especially given the fact that there's a good chance you are going to get back pay anyway. I've been unemployed a few times and it's not fun, but it also wasn't for only 2-3 weeks so until you walk a mile in my shoes...

I work for a fortune 100 company. I don't rely on them for my paycheck at all. So nice try. The fact that I don't rely on them for my paycheck, I'm still able to have sympathy for those that do. The fact you think that it is all about that just proves my earlier point, that you are a self-centered **** that can't think past yourself.

 

[Joe T]

We should just shut down the government 364 days a year, so that everyone magically becomes super-productive and gets a whole year's worth of work done on that last day.

That would be nice

When you find yourself agreeing with a plan that explicitly relies on "magic" to work, you should probably take a step back and re-examine your thought processes.

I think you've just solved the $300m per day riddle. Congrats!

 

[matttyl]

Agree completely!!! So why don't we look back at previous attempts to implement a guaranteed issue health insurance arrangement with no pre-exeisting limitations, and you show me some that worked out in the end.

So, Mass?

Glad you brought that up. Honestly, it's probably the best case to use (as it's the only one that's "worked"). Enacted in 2006, amended significantly in 2008, twice in 2010, and again just last year. Really it hasn't been around long enough to make heads or tails of it, but....

It's cost far more than they ever thought it would (requiring $1.5B from the federal government), and the "loss ratio" that carriers have averaged on their individual business has been over 100% (meaning that they have to pay more in claims in a year than they take in with premiums, so they lose money and have to increase rates to offset that). Health care spending has increased dramatically (thanks to more people not having access to care).

The % of uninsured has dropped SUBSTANTIALLY (granted), but not the average cost of care per person. Also, the number of people filing for bankruptcy due to medical costs increased by 33% from the year before reforms to those filing for that reason in 2009.

They have the highest health insurance premiums in the nation for private, employer-sponsored plans.

They have higher insurance premiums than the national average, and they have increased at a faster rate than the national average. All of that has been over a period of time where the average benefit of a plan (deductibles, out of pocket costs, copays) have all increased on average in that state. So they are paying more and getting less.

Might be a bit technical, but the per member per month average claim in 2005 (the year before Romneycare) was $257. In 2010, 5 years later, it was $359 (so a 40% increase in 5 years) - so it didn't do anything to reduce costs (claims). Source - http://www.slideserve.com/mort/massachusetts-health-care-cost-trends-premium-trends-in-private-comprehensive-health-insurance

 

[Kasparov]

Has anyone given any thought to the possibility that the republicans want this shutdown to ruin the economy, and force it into another depression?

It would be a great talking point for them, "Obama was president when the depression happened!".

How would that be any different than the past 5 years?

We haven't been in a depression the last five years, that's how.

I don't really agree.

You may be thinking of a 'recession', which we've most definitely been in.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I think we should just take about $5000 and buy some phones on eBay. Then sell them for a profit. If we scale this up, we could pay of the deficit in a couple years.

I think China could give us some seed money.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The government is bloated, it's too large, sorry you disagree and you rely on them for your paycheck, but that doesn't change my views that it's employees shouldn't be entitled to bullet proof job security when the rest of the country is hurting, especially given the fact that there's a good chance you are going to get back pay anyway. I've been unemployed a few times and it's not fun, but it also wasn't for only 2-3 weeks so until you walk a mile in my shoes...

I work for a fortune 100 company. I don't rely on them for my paycheck at all. So nice try. The fact that I don't rely on them for my paycheck, I'm still able to have sympathy for those that do. The fact you think that it is all about that just proves my earlier point, that you are a self-centered **** that can't think past yourself.

Nope, no sympathy for someone that does not have savings to last them 2 weeks in a situation where they will most likely get paid anyway. You are the one pointing fingers making a mountain out of a molehill. When private sector people get laid off it's not for 2 weeks and they certainly don't get reimbursed at the end of the 2 weeks so your argument holds no water.

 

[drummer]

JojoHUCKS?

 

[Slapdash]

Has anyone given any thought to the possibility that the republicans want this shutdown to ruin the economy, and force it into another depression?

It would be a great talking point for them, "Obama was president when the depression happened!".

How would that be any different than the past 5 years?

We haven't been in a depression the last five years, that's how.

I don't really agree.

You may be thinking of a 'recession', which we've most definitely been in.

I know what I am thinking of. Depression seems like a better term for a large, persistent gap beneath economic potential.

 

[Slapdash]

The government is bloated, it's too large, sorry you disagree and you rely on them for your paycheck, but that doesn't change my views that it's employees shouldn't be entitled to bullet proof job security when the rest of the country is hurting, especially given the fact that there's a good chance you are going to get back pay anyway. I've been unemployed a few times and it's not fun, but it also wasn't for only 2-3 weeks so until you walk a mile in my shoes...

I work for a fortune 100 company. I don't rely on them for my paycheck at all. So nice try. The fact that I don't rely on them for my paycheck, I'm still able to have sympathy for those that do. The fact you think that it is all about that just proves my earlier point, that you are a self-centered **** that can't think past yourself.

Nope, no sympathy for someone that does not have savings to last them 2 weeks in a situation where they will most likely get paid anyway. You are the one pointing fingers making a mountain out of a molehill. When private sector people get laid off it's not for 2 weeks and they certainly don't get reimbursed at the end of the 2 weeks so your argument holds no water.

Maybe they were holding savings in bitcoins?

 

[TxBuckeye]

The government is bloated, it's too large, sorry you disagree and you rely on them for your paycheck, but that doesn't change my views that it's employees shouldn't be entitled to bullet proof job security when the rest of the country is hurting, especially given the fact that there's a good chance you are going to get back pay anyway. I've been unemployed a few times and it's not fun, but it also wasn't for only 2-3 weeks so until you walk a mile in my shoes...

I work for a fortune 100 company. I don't rely on them for my paycheck at all. So nice try. The fact that I don't rely on them for my paycheck, I'm still able to have sympathy for those that do. The fact you think that it is all about that just proves my earlier point, that you are a self-centered **** that can't think past yourself.

Nope, no sympathy for someone that does not have savings to last them 2 weeks in a situation where they will most likely get paid anyway. You are the one pointing fingers making a mountain out of a molehill. When private sector people get laid off it's not for 2 weeks and they certainly don't get reimbursed at the end of the 2 weeks so your argument holds no water.

What "argument" is that exactly, other than I can have sympathy for a single mother trying to raise children on her own who is now out of work and wondering how she's going to manage? I'm sure she'd be glad to hear it's just a molehill. Man, you are really one bitter little self-centered pathetic human being.

 

[Joe T]

Here is a mind bender for Tim and crew:

If furloughed non-essential government workers costs $300m per day in lost productivity, how much does it cost in productivity to pay the unemployed people in the US not to work?

 

[msommer]

Has anyone given any thought to the possibility that the republicans want this shutdown to ruin the economy, and force it into another depression?

It would be a great talking point for them, "Obama was president when the depression happened!".

How would that be any different than the past 5 years?

We haven't been in a depression the last five years, that's how.

I don't really agree.

You may be thinking of a 'recession', which we've most definitely been in.

I know what I am thinking of. Depression seems like a better term for a large, persistent gap beneath economic potential.

The "really small" depression we could call it, to distinguish it from the other one...

 

[timschochet]

Here is a mind bender for Tim and crew:

If furloughed non-essential government workers costs $300m per day in lost productivity, how much does it cost in productivity to pay the unemployed people in the US not to work?

I don't have any crew. And I'm not going to play your games. You lack credibility.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The government is bloated, it's too large, sorry you disagree and you rely on them for your paycheck, but that doesn't change my views that it's employees shouldn't be entitled to bullet proof job security when the rest of the country is hurting, especially given the fact that there's a good chance you are going to get back pay anyway. I've been unemployed a few times and it's not fun, but it also wasn't for only 2-3 weeks so until you walk a mile in my shoes...

I work for a fortune 100 company. I don't rely on them for my paycheck at all. So nice try. The fact that I don't rely on them for my paycheck, I'm still able to have sympathy for those that do. The fact you think that it is all about that just proves my earlier point, that you are a self-centered **** that can't think past yourself.

Nope, no sympathy for someone that does not have savings to last them 2 weeks in a situation where they will most likely get paid anyway. You are the one pointing fingers making a mountain out of a molehill. When private sector people get laid off it's not for 2 weeks and they certainly don't get reimbursed at the end of the 2 weeks so your argument holds no water.

What "argument" is that exactly, other than I can have sympathy for a single mother trying to raise children on her own who is now out of work and wondering how she's going to manage? I'm sure she'd be glad to hear it's just a molehill. Man, you are really one bitter little self-centered pathetic human being.

Keep slinging insults, it really proves my point how you are blowing this out of proportion. Why should I care about a mother affected by this short term hiccup compared to a mother that is laid off for 6 months and doesn't get retroactive pay, adding details about the people affected (single mother) doesn't make anyone affected by this a more sympathetic cause than someone laid off in private sector for different reasons and likely didn't have a cushy job for the past 15 years with no fear of getting laid off (see I can add irrelevant details too).

 

[The Commish]

JojoHUCKS?

King of responding to #### he hasn't even read...it's quite entertaining.

 

[Joe T]

Here is a mind bender for Tim and crew:

If furloughed non-essential government workers costs $300m per day in lost productivity, how much does it cost in productivity to pay the unemployed people in the US not to work?

I don't have any crew. And I'm not going to play your games. You lack credibility.

So you couldn't figure it out, huh? It wasn't posted in some headline for you to cut and paste I guess.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Here is a mind bender for Tim and crew:

If furloughed non-essential government workers costs $300m per day in lost productivity, how much does it cost in productivity to pay the unemployed people in the US not to work?

I don't have any crew. And I'm not going to play your games. You lack credibility.

And here I thought we were friends.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Here is a mind bender for Tim and crew:

If furloughed non-essential government workers costs $300m per day in lost productivity, how much does it cost in productivity to pay the unemployed people in the US not to work?

But hey, "it's not about the people not working" it's about all the millions the government and airlines and small businesses and hotels not making off of tourists not spending their money at government sponsored parks, instead the tourists' hard earned money might be spent at Disney World or a waterpark and all of the airlines, hotels, and small business surrounding those attractions. GASP.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So you admit there were delays in processing things that brought revenue in at a later date and this money was in fact not "lost". Same can be said for people not visiting national parks, sure some of them probably never got a chance to return to visit but who's to say the majority of the visitors didn't go weeks or months later? None of this can be substantiated. People didn't travel to X because it was closed, so they traveled to Z instead. Airlines servicing X lost money, airlines servicing Z made money instead. The argument you are trying to stand behind is nothing more than resource allocation and you can't prove otherwise.

No. Most of that $2bn number is wages paid to federal employees for the period on which they were on furlough and did no work. Then the federal government had to eventually make it up in the future. The argument you're "refuting" exists only in your head.

So the work was made up in the future and that $2bn in lost revenue was magically found at a later date, awesome, I love magic.

 

[Slapdash]

Here is a mind bender for Tim and crew:

If furloughed non-essential government workers costs $300m per day in lost productivity, how much does it cost in productivity to pay the unemployed people in the US not to work?

But hey, "it's not about the people not working" it's about all the millions the government and airlines and small businesses and hotels not making off of tourists not spending their money at government sponsored parks, instead the tourists' hard earned money might be spent at Disney World or a waterpark and all of the airlines, hotels, and small business surrounding those attractions. GASP.

You have a stunning grasp on how the economy works. Please tell us more.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Here is a mind bender for Tim and crew:

If furloughed non-essential government workers costs $300m per day in lost productivity, how much does it cost in productivity to pay the unemployed people in the US not to work?

But hey, "it's not about the people not working" it's about all the millions the government and airlines and small businesses and hotels not making off of tourists not spending their money at government sponsored parks, instead the tourists' hard earned money might be spent at Disney World or a waterpark and all of the airlines, hotels, and small business surrounding those attractions. GASP.

You have a stunning grasp on how the economy works. Please tell us more.

Let me dumb it down for you. The money was never "lost".

"Honey looks like we have to cancel our trip to D.C. this weekend, what should we do with this $2,000, should I just take a match and light it on fire," said nobody ever

.

 

[drummer]

The Tom Brady MVP thread has more value than this.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The Tom Brady MVP thread has more value than this.

The similarity in people placing too much emphasis on the title of the thread is relevant.

 

[drummer]

The Tom Brady MVP thread has more value than this.

The similarity in people placing too much emphasis on the title of the thread is relevant.

To be honest, I left the work "comedic" out of my post, just to keep it open to interpretation.

 

[The Commish]

Here is a mind bender for Tim and crew:

If furloughed non-essential government workers costs $300m per day in lost productivity, how much does it cost in productivity to pay the unemployed people in the US not to work?

But hey, "it's not about the people not working" it's about all the millions the government and airlines and small businesses and hotels not making off of tourists not spending their money at government sponsored parks, instead the tourists' hard earned money might be spent at Disney World or a waterpark and all of the airlines, hotels, and small business surrounding those attractions. GASP.

You have a stunning grasp on how the economy works. Please tell us more.

This little comment just gained us another 50-60 pages....nice work <_<

 

[spreagle]

Hey I have an idea that might satisfy the tea party, if Obamacare is estimated to cost 200 billion (in extra debt) a year, and if nonessential furloughed federal employees cost 300 million a day (1 billion every 3 days, 120 billion or so a year) then we could pay over half of Obamacare just by firing all non essential federal employees, right?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

There will be no debt default. Obama could stand in front of Congress waving both middle fingers while screwing Boehner's girlfriend and screaming "I got yer negotiations right here, #####!" and Boehner would still cave and work with Dems to pass a bill in the end.

It's all a show.

House Speaker John A. Boehner, apparently sharing Obama administration alarm about a possible debt default, has told colleagues he will act to raise the federal debt limit even if he has to rely on the votes of House Democrats, GOP aides said Thursday.

 

[[icon]]

Agree completely!!! So why don't we look back at previous attempts to implement a guaranteed issue health insurance arrangement with no pre-exeisting limitations, and you show me some that worked out in the end.

So, Mass?

Glad you brought that up. Honestly, it's probably the best case to use (as it's the only one that's "worked"). Enacted in 2006, amended significantly in 2008, twice in 2010, and again just last year. Really it hasn't been around long enough to make heads or tails of it, but....

It's cost far more than they ever thought it would (requiring $1.5B from the federal government), and the "loss ratio" that carriers have averaged on their individual business has been over 100% (meaning that they have to pay more in claims in a year than they take in with premiums, so they lose money and have to increase rates to offset that). Health care spending has increased dramatically (thanks to more people not having access to care).

The % of uninsured has dropped SUBSTANTIALLY (granted), but not the average cost of care per person. Also, the number of people filing for bankruptcy due to medical costs increased by 33% from the year before reforms to those filing for that reason in 2009.

They have the highest health insurance premiums in the nation for private, employer-sponsored plans.

They have higher insurance premiums than the national average, and they have increased at a faster rate than the national average. All of that has been over a period of time where the average benefit of a plan (deductibles, out of pocket costs, copays) have all increased on average in that state. So they are paying more and getting less.

Might be a bit technical, but the per member per month average claim in 2005 (the year before Romneycare) was $257. In 2010, 5 years later, it was $359 (so a 40% increase in 5 years) - so it didn't do anything to reduce costs (claims). Source - http://www.slideserve.com/mort/massachusetts-health-care-cost-trends-premium-trends-in-private-comprehensive-health-insurance

Get out of here with those facts... when our federal government does it on a larger scale, it'll totally work. I promise!

 

[Slapdash]

Here is a mind bender for Tim and crew:

If furloughed non-essential government workers costs $300m per day in lost productivity, how much does it cost in productivity to pay the unemployed people in the US not to work?

But hey, "it's not about the people not working" it's about all the millions the government and airlines and small businesses and hotels not making off of tourists not spending their money at government sponsored parks, instead the tourists' hard earned money might be spent at Disney World or a waterpark and all of the airlines, hotels, and small business surrounding those attractions. GASP.

You have a stunning grasp on how the economy works. Please tell us more.

Let me dumb it down for you. The money was never "lost".

"Honey looks like we have to cancel our trip to D.C. this weekend, what should we do with this $2,000, should I just take a match and light it on fire," said nobody ever

.

 

[badmojo1006]

I am hardly a Congressional Historian, and I am sure there have been awful examples of "leadership" in the past, however has there ever been a worse Speaker than Boehner? He seems to be doing harm to the nation, to Congress' reputation (as if it could get worse... but WAIT! THERE'S MORE!) and to his own party. He seems to have lost the faith of many in his own party and has demonstrated not only an inability to get anything done. Well, anything positive.

Historically, will be be viewed as one of the worst speakers ever?

You don't have to be a historian to remember Nancy Pelosi.

You may not like her politics, but she did a great job

 

[jamny]

I do feel bad for the people that are affected by this but I find it all so entertaining.

Theater of the absurd.

 

[Jayrod]

So can someone sum up this thread for me in two sentences? TIA, will answer yours.

 

[Scoresman]

So can someone sum up this thread for me in two sentences? TIA, will answer yours.

Republican Congress took their ball and went home. Republican FBGs defend them anyway.

 

[TheIronSheik]

So can someone sum up this thread for me in two sentences? TIA, will answer yours.

Comedy Gold?

 

[TheIronSheik]

So can someone sum up this thread for me in two sentences? TIA, will answer yours.

Comedy Gold?

Whoops. I thought you said two words.

 

[Jayrod]

So can someone sum up this thread for me in two sentences? TIA, will answer yours.

Comedy Gold?

I said sentences, not words...but I like your style.

And the cut of your jib, but that goes without saying.

 

[jon_mx]

I am hardly a Congressional Historian, and I am sure there have been awful examples of "leadership" in the past, however has there ever been a worse Speaker than Boehner? He seems to be doing harm to the nation, to Congress' reputation (as if it could get worse... but WAIT! THERE'S MORE!) and to his own party. He seems to have lost the faith of many in his own party and has demonstrated not only an inability to get anything done. Well, anything positive.

Historically, will be be viewed as one of the worst speakers ever?

You don't have to be a historian to remember Nancy Pelosi.

You may not like her politics, but she did a great job

 

[Joe T]

Hey I have an idea that might satisfy the tea party, if Obamacare is estimated to cost 200 billion (in extra debt) a year, and if nonessential furloughed federal employees cost 300 million a day (1 billion every 3 days, 120 billion or so a year) then we could pay over half of Obamacare just by firing all non essential federal employees, right?

Exhibit A for why you shouldn't go to the Rocco Clubbo School of Typewriter Maintenance to take math.