Gov. Shutdown?

[Jonathan Whatley]

As a black person, if I had to choose pre-1964 America vs. post-1964 America, post-1964 America would win hands down. It makes me raise an eyebrow when people say that we were kinder to our neighbors when we had God more in our lives and schools when Americans were absolutely brutal to each other. It disturbs me to read how people so easily forget the oppression of minorities and women as if it didn't matter.

Louis CK riffs on this. Video via YouTube; expletives are used: Being White.

[dposborne]

As to the thread itself:

The biggest problem I have though is this: The ACA WAS passed, legitimately (even if you don't agree with it, no rules were broken). It was upheld by the Supreme Court. Now a minority in Congress decided that the democratic process shouldn't matter.

Not that I am taking sides here (I don't really get into much politics anymore since my doctor said its actually bad for my blood pressure), but no matter how much we dislike what the "GOP" or even what the "Dems" did recently they didn't break any rules doing it... They actually used the democratic process to aid in their agendas... If you step back and look at the whole picture, the GOP "legitimately" turned down a budget bill, wrote their own and the DEMS "legitimately" turned down that bill and decided to rewrite another. And as we all know this happened several times... The reasons for why this happened are superfluous...

[Tedium]

Not that I am taking sides here (I don't really get into much politics anymore since my doctor said its actually bad for my blood pressure), but no matter how much we dislike what the "GOP" or even what the "Dems" did recently they didn't break any rules doing it... They actually used the democratic process to aid in their agendas... If you step back and look at the whole picture, the GOP "legitimately" turned down a budget bill, wrote their own and the DEMS "legitimately" turned down that bill and decided to rewrite another. And as we all know this happened several times... The reasons for why this happened are superfluous...

I don't think they are superfluous at all. I think the reasons why these things happened are incredibly important. If we were talking about weather phenomena or the universality of human mortality, I would say that the reasons don't matter, because there is nothing we can do about either of those things. But we are talking about living, breathing, flawed people who were hired to do a job, which neither side is doing well. No one is saying either side broke any rules; they just suck at not being immature children. Whether or not the process they used was legitimate, the American people (and the world even) need to examine what happened here, so that we don't send similar people to office that will exhibit the same levels of stupidity. Why is the key to the whole thing.

But that's just my opinion. Don't let it affect your blood pressure.

[sklineho]

They my have followed the rules (technically) but that doesn't make it right. We also have to consider that said "rules" were tailor-made by these same crooks.

The overarching problem is still with the American people though. The people allow this, and will continue to allow and support this. They'll piss and moan an every comment section on every Yahoo article and then turn right around and vote these clowns back in. That's not hyperbole, it's a documented fact. We deserve all of this, sadly.

[Jonathan Whatley]

Eric Stern was senior counsel to Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-Montana).

I happened to turn on the Hannity show on Fox News last Friday evening. “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck,” Hannity announced, “and six of them are here tonight to tell us their stories.” Three married couples were neatly arranged in his studio, the wives seated and the men standing behind them, like game show contestants. […]

But none of it smelled right to me. Nothing these folks were saying jibed with the basic facts of the Affordable Care Act as I understand them. I understand them fairly well; I have worked as a senior adviser to a governor and helped him deal with the new federal rules.

I decided to hit the pavement. I tracked down Hannity’s guests, one by one, and did my own telephone interviews with them.

First I spoke with Paul Cox of Leicester, N.C. He and his wife Michelle had lamented to Hannity that because of Obamacare, they can’t grow their construction business and they have kept their employees below a certain number of hours, so that they are part-timers.

Obamacare has no effect on businesses with 49 employees or less. But in our brief conversation on the phone, Paul revealed that he has only four employees. Why the cutback on his workforce? “Well,” he said, “I haven’t been forced to do so, it’s just that I’ve chosen to do so. I have to deal with increased costs.” What costs? And how, I asked him, is any of it due to Obamacare? There was a long pause, after which he said he’d call me back. He never did.

There is only one Obamacare requirement that applies to a company of this size: workers must be notified of the existence of the “healthcare.gov” website, the insurance exchange. That’s all.

The other two couples, Stern found out, complained about premiums increases on their current plans but had not yet shopped, or refused to shop, for lower premiums on the insurance exchange.

I think the writer is fair-minded about the ACA here. Can you say the same for Hannity?

It’s true that we don’t know for sure whether certain ills conservatives have warned about will occur once Obamacare is fully enacted. For example, will we truly have the same freedom to choose a physician that we have now? Will a surplus of insured patients require a scaling back (or “rationing,” as some call it) of provided healthcare services? Will doctors be able to spend as much time with patients? These are all valid, unanswered questions. The problem is that people like Sean Hannity have decided to answer them now, without evidence. Or worse, with fake evidence.

Inside the Fox News lie machine: I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare (Eric Stern, Salon.com, October 18, 2013)

[sanantone]

Most of the people I've encountered who oppose ACA either lie about the requirements or don't understand them. There have been many polls done on the individual components of ACA and most people like them except for the mandate.

[sanantone]

I think this video is so telling. Many people will just oppose anything linked to Obama because they think he's a Muslim who was born in Kenya. I bet, if Ted Cruz runs for president, there won't be this huge birther movement questioning his eligibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE

[sklineho]

Most of the people I've encountered who oppose ACA either lie about the requirements or don't understand them. There have been many polls done on the individual components of ACA and most people like them except for the mandate.

To be fair, and this also responds to the previous post regarding Hannity, shows like Hannity are not news shows. These shows are meant to basically give viewers a warm and fuzzy feeling of affirmation. Basically it's "these people think like I think so I must be right." It seems ingenious but in reality it's basic psychology, and Fox is hardly the only network that does it. The people who watch Hannity or Rachel Maddow or any other political shout-show don't care if they're lied to, it's "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up." Hannity does what these people out in the real world are usually too civil to do: he shouts down the people they don't like. The three couples on his show, well of course it's staged, that's the point. The moment Hannity says something off-script, his base will accuse him of being a liberal socialist communist fake. I personally like Hannity, and Maddow, and OReilly, and Limbaugh, and Olberman. These people found a niche and exploited it. Good on them. I'd do the same thing.

Which comes back to your point about people who oppose ACA lying: they're conditioned to lie about it. TV told them to, along with their friend and family on Facebook and anyone else they encounter. Anyone who says otherwise is "a liberal who hates America."

I personally think that what makes this worse is, the ACA really IS a bad law. It was rushed and not well thought out. The sad thing is that people really should oppose it, but for the real reasons that it's just not a well planned law. But that doesn't boost TV ratings if you simply state those facts, you have to create a boogeyman. In fact, if the GOP had any sense, they'd have simply let the law take effect and let the people end up not liking it. But that wouldn't have boosted Fox's rating and wouldn't have gotten Ted Cruz on TV.

Now I'll go into some downright tinfoil hattery: I don't think Fox News, Glenn Beck et al WANT the GOP to ever win the presidency again. Obama has been the boogeyman they wanted and he's raised their ratings and made them a ton of money.

And who is to blame for all of this? Not cable news networks or radio blowhards, no it's the general public that are to blame. We created this monster. We decided at some point that instead of thinking, researching, and otherwise informing ourselves, that we'd rather sit on our asses and let TV tell us what to think. I personally find the idea of getting any news from cable news networks to be laughable. I can learn far more with far less spin and flash by simply spending five minutes online than in thirty minutes of cable news (actual cable news, not even counting the commercials).

[sanantone]

I have tried to watch Fox News and MSNBC, but I just can't. There are too many shows with political commentators. I just want to hear the news. CNN is accused of having a slight liberal bias, but I like that they don't have many political commentators running the shows. A lot of people find this boring. They want to be entertained by the loudmouths.

[EI2HCB]

Interesting discussion! Here's the issues as I see them do we want to force people to take insurance? Is this an American idea? I have insurance and wouldn't be without it and I don't need to be forced to do it. I also wear a seatbelt and I'm not forced to do so although the law states that I must. As for the debt ceiling its another issue can we continue to borrow to pay our debts as a nation? For a while. Can we as individuals continue to borrow to pay off our school loans and credit cards instead of using our income to pay off our debts "Yes we can!" but for how long before our credit score diminishes? Is it wise to do so? As an Irishman who's experienced European style austerity as is the prescription of certain individuals, it is not pretty but what is the end result. Ireland will regain its natural sovereignty next year from the IMF they haven't defaulted on their loans they made the people pay more taxes to produce more income and borrowed from the IMF. As Americans we can't do that because we'd tumble the world into a recession which may take us to the dark ages so the idea of defaulting is self destructing and even those who espouse it publicly understand this. I believe we should cut back our borrowing and pay off our debts but can we as a nation afford to do so? Who'd like to vote to pay more taxes to pay off the debt I know I'm trying to find ways to pay little or no taxes. What is the real solution?