djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2013 11:50:59 GMT -5
as you all well know, the most recent Gallup Poll showed the GOP popularity at a 20 year low. well, i was wrong about that. it is the lowest they have polled IN THE HISTORY OF GALLUP (the oldest polling agency): www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspxthe numbers were even WORSE in the NBC/WSJ poll, now giving a 20 point margin to Democrats: firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/10/20903531-nbcwsj-poll-60-percent-say-fire-every-member-of-congress?liteand to make matters worse, the numbers for ObamaCare are +7% on approval since the shutdown began. but it gets better (worse). OBAMA'S approval numbers, which have been sinking steadily for TEN MONTHS hit a SIX MONTH HIGH in Rasmussen today: his numbers are now more favorable than at any time between October 2009 and the election. this is already a disaster for the GOP, imo. this stuff is going to become part of the commercials that congressional Democrats are going to run next fall. the only question that remains is: in this game of polling limbo, how low will they go?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 11, 2013 12:11:18 GMT -5
<<Shakes head in disgust and tries to find a viable third party alternative>>
Thanks DJ, just the way I wanted to end my week.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2013 12:12:52 GMT -5
<<Shakes head in disgust and tries to find a viable third party alternative>> Thanks DJ, just the way I wanted to end my week. sorry, cap. i am ONLY posting this because there are some that think this stuff is unimportant. it is not unimportant. it is how things work. and ftr, i am registering Independent this Fall.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 12:15:30 GMT -5
Doesn't surprise me. The Republicans are the ones who forced the shutdown.
The Obama poll surprises me a bit just because other polls were supposedly showing his rating being near it's lowest ever.
In any case, I don't think we will know the full impact until this whole thing shakes out and the RESULTS of all this drama are known.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2013 12:21:14 GMT -5
Doesn't surprise me. The Republicans are the ones who forced the shutdown. The Obama poll surprises me a bit just because other polls were supposedly showing his rating being near it's lowest ever. for the record, i think that the Rasmussen poll is probably an "outlier". i think their polling methodology sucks. i can go into an elaborate explanation of WHY, but it is kinda out of place in a thread where i have quoted their data.In any case, I don't think we will know the full impact until this whole thing shakes out and the RESULTS of all this drama are known. i agree completely. however, i think the "pain" part of this story is going to be easier to remember than the "joy" part. in fact, i am having trouble visualizing the joy part right now, but maybe some shutdown enthusiasts can point it out to me. what has been accomplished, here?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 11, 2013 12:22:47 GMT -5
So the shutdown is solely caused by the actions of one party, really?
You know, you're right - we should just keep spending money like a teenager with an unlimited credit card and let someone else worry about the bills when they come due.
And it's totally ok for one party who is in majority control of two branches of government to tell the minority party to pound sand and keep them away from the bargening table.
Silly me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 12:26:13 GMT -5
what has been accomplished, here? We'll see. Whether it was done on purpose or not, Obamacare seems to have been dropped as the focus and now they're simply on spending cuts. Who out there thinks the gov't doesn't need to reduce spending?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 11, 2013 12:26:32 GMT -5
Doesn't surprise me. The Republicans are the ones who forced the shutdown. The Obama poll surprises me a bit just because other polls were supposedly showing his rating being near it's lowest ever. for the record, i think that the Rasmussen poll is probably an "outlier". i think their polling methodology sucks. i can go into an elaborate explanation of WHY, but it is kinda out of place in a thread where i have quoted their data.In any case, I don't think we will know the full impact until this whole thing shakes out and the RESULTS of all this drama are known. i agree completely. however, i think the "pain" part of this story is going to be easier to remember than the "joy" part. in fact, i am having trouble visualizing the joy part right now, but maybe some shutdown enthusiasts can point it out to me. what has been accomplished, here? Our commander in chief is finally agreeing to talk to the minority party for one...and the majority party has had to come to the realization that they really don't hold all the cards, as originally thought. I consider myself an independent, but if the Republican party goes down, I like to think there are enough intelligent people out there who will vote against the Democratic party simply for not being willing to negotiate in good faith in the beginning. I'm probably wrong about that though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 12:29:26 GMT -5
So the shutdown is solely caused by the actions of one party, really? You know, you're right - we should just keep spending money like a teenager with an unlimited credit card and let someone else worry about the bills when they come due. And it's totally ok for one party who is in majority control of two branches of government to tell the minority party to pound sand and keep them away from the bargening table. Silly me. Why are you jumping to conclusions about what I am saying? It's simply a fact that the Republicans took the physical actions tha caused the shutdown. That doesn't mean they are "bad' or "to blame", just that they are the ones that actively caused it. Honestly, I'm hopeful that this shutdown will lead to spending cuts. But I also think that both parties could just act like adults instead of children.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 11, 2013 12:36:13 GMT -5
So the shutdown is solely caused by the actions of one party, really? You know, you're right - we should just keep spending money like a teenager with an unlimited credit card and let someone else worry about the bills when they come due. And it's totally ok for one party who is in majority control of two branches of government to tell the minority party to pound sand and keep them away from the bargening table. Silly me. Why are you jumping to conclusions about what I am saying? It's simply a fact that the Republicans took the physical actions tha caused the shutdown. That doesn't mean they are "bad' or "to blame", just that they are the ones that actively caused it. Honestly, I'm hopeful that this shutdown will lead to spending cuts. But I also think that both parties could just act like adults instead of children.I agree with this. However you state the Republicans took the action that caused the shutdown. Those actions are the result of years of culminating actions on the part of the Democratic majority. President Obama even stated a few months ago he was NOT going to negotiate, period. The tone has changed a little and I think it took these drastic measures to finally get both sides talking. Sure, the Republicans could have done nothing, and continue to be marginalized as they were for the past several years. If they had not caused the shutdown do you really think anyone would listen to their concerns? I don't. So I can't put the full blame on them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 12:40:06 GMT -5
I consider myself an independent, but if the Republican party goes down, I like to think there are enough intelligent people out there who will vote against the Democratic party simply for not being willing to negotiate in good faith in the beginning.
I'm probably wrong about that though.
damn....i wish
but the last thing that will happen is people voting AGAINST their own interests
pubs are the "take away" party....at least that is the perception from the msm
why vote for the people who want to take shit away from you.......
and the attitude from most is let the NEXT generation deal with it
just GIVE me my shit now
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 11, 2013 12:43:01 GMT -5
<<Shakes head in disgust and tries to find a viable third party alternative>> Thanks DJ, just the way I wanted to end my week. sorry, cap. i am ONLY posting this because there are some that think this stuff is unimportant. it is not unimportant. it is how things work. and ftr, i am registering Independent this Fall. Welcome to the club! I've been a registered Independent for many years. While what's going on now is atrocious, to me it's nothing all that new from the politicians. They're the last ones to be interested in what happens to this country. They're short-sighted enough, apparently, to believe the future is divined by the current state of their personal bank accounts.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 11, 2013 13:08:50 GMT -5
... I consider myself an independent, but if the Republican party goes down, I like to think there are enough intelligent people out there who will vote against the Democratic party simply for not being willing to negotiate in good faith in the beginning. ... There has been no process to "vote against" a political party in any election in which I have voted. It has always been necessary to 'vote for' a candidate (or slate of candidates with the Electoral College). So if there is no candidate that is identified as a 'Republican', do you support voting for 'anyone but a Democrat' as the way to "vote against the Democratic Party"?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 11, 2013 13:16:26 GMT -5
Obamacare was passed by congress and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. It's a law now, like any other duly voted on and approved law.
What the Republicans SHOULD have done was to let the law promulgate like laws normally do. Then take note of all the things that are wrong with Obamacare - and there are plenty of things that are wrong with it. Let it run for a couple years and see how it plays out.
If, by 2016, the Republicans are proven right, the debt has continued to climb, their computer network is still a joke, and none of the 'low cost' healthcare options have materialized, the Republicans base their 2016 presidental campaign on what a complete disaster Obamacare is. Win the whitehouse and kick out a bunch of Dems in Congress (because Americans will be at the party that pushed Obamacare through). THEN the republicans can modify or eliminate Obamacare all they want, in the normal legislative manner.
Instead we now have plenty of sound bites of Republicans advocating shutting down the government because they didn't get their way, looking like petulant toddlers. We have Bachman talking on a radio show about how she is certain the government shutdown is part of the 'end times' and we all should be happy about the impending Apocolypse. And the uproar over the shut down has overshadowed the launch of the crappy Obamacare software (which was apparently designed by 3rd graders) - Republicans could really have made some brownie points off of that.
Democrats will be replaying all the lowlights of this fiasco during the 2016 election. If Obamacare is even a halfway decent program, it will guarantee the Dems another presidential win. Republicans would have been better off sitting on their hands hoping that Obamacare is the disaster they claim it will be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 13:25:23 GMT -5
I agree with this. However you state the Republicans took the action that caused the shutdown. Those actions are the result of years of culminating actions on the part of the Democratic majority. President Obama even stated a few months ago he was NOT going to negotiate, period. The tone has changed a little and I think it took these drastic measures to finally get both sides talking. Sure, the Republicans could have done nothing, and continue to be marginalized as they were for the past several years. If they had not caused the shutdown do you really think anyone would listen to their concerns?I don't. So I can't put the full blame on them. It's not like Republicans are a weak third party. DF and I are moderates, and keen on strategy. I lean a bit left (I used to be hard right as a kid/teenager when had faith in people's planning skills) and DF is definitively right leaning. We're blending into OK and TX well, and DF has "not a liberal" stamps of approval from the Tea Party folks at his branch and the corporate office. DF voted against Obama.We both think that this is a stunt that goes against orderly process, causes collateral damage, and embarrasses our country. DF actually has harsher words for it, and calls it a "*beeping* mess" among other things. If a side wants to change things, there's a process. They could take back the majority if they used their brains and strategized properly instead of grandstanding on soap boxes that alienate the middle. Instead they pull a lame brained stunt like this, because yes, they're not winning right now. It seems like an embarrassment to the "thinking" party, that they're strategizing this poorly, and basically rebelling against constitutional process, something they loudly claim to hold near and dear. Just our opinions We're not liking anyone in politics right now, but the Republicans seem to really be beating the heck out of themselves, swinging in the dark instead of getting their heads on straight.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2013 13:31:33 GMT -5
what has been accomplished, here? We'll see. i'm not waiting. i am asking. the question was past tense.Whether it was done on purpose or not, Obamacare seems to have been dropped as the focus and now they're simply on spending cuts. Who out there thinks the gov't doesn't need to reduce spending? they have barely even mentioned it in the last week. it was all they talked about before then. what is the current spending level -vs- GDP, and i will answer the second question.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2013 13:33:12 GMT -5
i agree completely. however, i think the "pain" part of this story is going to be easier to remember than the "joy" part. in fact, i am having trouble visualizing the joy part right now, but maybe some shutdown enthusiasts can point it out to me. what has been accomplished, here? Our commander in chief is finally agreeing to talk to the minority party for one... under HIS conditions? yes. of course. he was always willing to do that.and the majority party has had to come to the realization that they really don't hold all the cards, as originally thought. the majority party has known that since 2010.I consider myself an independent, but if the Republican party goes down, I like to think there are enough intelligent people out there who will vote against the Democratic party simply for not being willing to negotiate in good faith in the beginning. I'm probably wrong about that though. no, i think you are right. but what intelligent people need are intelligent candidates. i am not seeing many on the right, honestly.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2013 13:42:38 GMT -5
So the shutdown is solely caused by the actions of one party, really? yes! really! as i have said before, congress controls spending, not the president. therefore, they are totally responsible for the shutdown. this includes the Republican House and the Democratic Senate.You know, you're right - we should just keep spending money like a teenager with an unlimited credit card and let someone else worry about the bills when they come due. why do people who are on the other side of the debate resort to this argument? i have never said i want an inbalanced budget. would it not be easier to assume that i am with you, or do you just like to make enemies out of everyone within the sight of a computer monitor?And it's totally ok for one party who is in majority control of two branches of government to tell the minority party to pound sand and keep them away from the bargening table. Silly me. i am going to say this one more time, then assume that you are just not hearing the argument. bargaining with the debt is not fair play. period. congress authorizes spending. to simply cut off credit is not acceptable. regarding spending, i need data to answer that question. i don't have time to look it up right now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 13:45:54 GMT -5
Obamacare was passed by congress and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. It's a law now, like any other duly voted on and approved law. What the Republicans SHOULD have done was to let the law promulgate like laws normally do. Then take note of all the things that are wrong with Obamacare - and there are plenty of things that are wrong with it. Let it run for a couple years and see how it plays out. If, by 2016, the Republicans are proven right, the debt has continued to climb, their computer network is still a joke, and none of the 'low cost' healthcare options have materialized, the Republicans base their 2016 presidental campaign on what a complete disaster Obamacare is. Win the whitehouse and kick out a bunch of Dems in Congress (because Americans will be at the party that pushed Obamacare through). THEN the republicans can modify or eliminate Obamacare all they want, in the normal legislative manner. Instead we now have plenty of sound bites of Republicans advocating shutting down the government because they didn't get their way, looking like petulant toddlers. We have Bachman talking on a radio show about how she is certain the government shutdown is part of the 'end times' and we all should be happy about the impending Apocolypse. And the uproar over the shut down has overshadowed the launch of the crappy Obamacare software (which was apparently designed by 3rd graders) - Republicans could really have made some brownie points off of that. Democrats will be replaying all the lowlights of this fiasco during the 2016 election. If Obamacare is even a halfway decent program, it will guarantee the Dems another presidential win. Republicans would have been better off sitting on their hands hoping that Obamacare is the disaster they claim it will be. If, by 2016, the Republicans are proven right, the debt has continued to climb, their computer network is still a joke, and none of the 'low cost' healthcare options have materialized, the Republicans base their 2016 presidental campaign on what a complete disaster Obamacare is. Win the whitehouse and kick out a bunch of Dems in Congress (because Americans will be at the party that pushed Obamacare through). THEN the republicans can modify or eliminate Obamacare all they want, in the normal legislative manner.
normally...that would have been the plan this is NOT a normal bill or piece of legislation the amount of money being used to setup this massive piece of legislation makes getting rid of it later ALMOST an impossibility new departments in government....thousands of new employees and with automatic funding, it doesnt have to be discussed on an annual basis the pubs have lost this battle....defunding now was really the ONLY chance, it it really wasnt much of one but the PLAN was to use that to get other things....and so far that isnt working so well either but...i still have hope.....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2013 13:48:26 GMT -5
Why are you jumping to conclusions about what I am saying? It's simply a fact that the Republicans took the physical actions tha caused the shutdown. That doesn't mean they are "bad' or "to blame", just that they are the ones that actively caused it. Honestly, I'm hopeful that this shutdown will lead to spending cuts. But I also think that both parties could just act like adults instead of children.I agree with this. However you state the Republicans took the action that caused the shutdown. a fact. i blame the Hastert Rule. if not for it, we would have a budget.Those actions are the result of years of culminating actions on the part of the Democratic majority. not really. the problem started under Reagan. it has continued until this day. it is not a one party problem.President Obama even stated a few months ago he was NOT going to negotiate, period. no, he did NOT say that. try again.The tone has changed a little and I think it took these drastic measures to finally get both sides talking. interesting narrative, but at odds with the facts. Obama's position has not shifted one inch.Sure, the Republicans could have done nothing, and continue to be marginalized as they were for the past several years. If they had not caused the shutdown do you really think anyone would listen to their concerns? on the contrary. the sequester was a great victory for the GOP and the TP, and continues to be. Obama STUPIDLY thought they would never go through with it. not only did they, it has become essentially a permanent fixture in the budget. all hail the TP! (i mean that, really- it was an amazing feat).I don't. So I can't put the full blame on them. i can.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2013 13:49:56 GMT -5
I consider myself an independent, but if the Republican party goes down, I like to think there are enough intelligent people out there who will vote against the Democratic party simply for not being willing to negotiate in good faith in the beginning.
I'm probably wrong about that though.
damn....i wish but the last thing that will happen is people voting AGAINST their own interests this is one of the funniest things you have ever said on the board, gd. the people have been voting against their own interests since at least 1950. probably earlier. maybe ALWAYS. not sure about the last claim. but possibly always.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 11, 2013 13:54:21 GMT -5
If, by 2016, the Republicans are proven right, the debt has continued to climb, their computer network is still a joke, and none of the 'low cost' healthcare options have materialized, the Republicans base their 2016 presidental campaign on what a complete disaster Obamacare is. Win the whitehouse and kick out a bunch of Dems in Congress (because Americans will be at the party that pushed Obamacare through). THEN the republicans can modify or eliminate Obamacare all they want, in the normal legislative manner.
normally...that would have been the plan this is NOT a normal bill or piece of legislation the amount of money being used to setup this massive piece of legislation makes getting rid of it later ALMOST an impossibility new departments in government....thousands of new employees and with automatic funding, it doesnt have to be discussed on an annual basis the pubs have lost this battle....defunding now was really the ONLY chance, it it really wasnt much of one but the PLAN was to use that to get other things....and so far that isnt working so well either but...i still have hope..... if you believe that, i can see why you are worried. but it is just not true. this bill is less costly than Medicare Part B, the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, and the Bush Tax Cuts (on a balance sheet basis). fix any of them, and you get a nice windfall, and put things back in balance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 14:13:51 GMT -5
I agree with this. However you state the Republicans took the action that caused the shutdown. Those actions are the result of years of culminating actions on the part of the Democratic majority. President Obama even stated a few months ago he was NOT going to negotiate, period. The tone has changed a little and I think it took these drastic measures to finally get both sides talking. Sure, the Republicans could have done nothing, and continue to be marginalized as they were for the past several years. If they had not caused the shutdown do you really think anyone would listen to their concerns? I don't. So I can't put the full blame on them. Yes. I just mean that the Republicans are the ones that "pulled the trigger", so to speak. And they are now "getting credit" for that. Right or wrong, it's not unexpected.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 14:18:15 GMT -5
is medicare going away? nope...ok war in iraq....basically done and over....check war in afghanistan....not sure what the hell we are still doing there....i agree we should shut it all down bush tax cuts.....i believe we just had a round of tax increases....never enough though is it.....the more we pay, the more they spend have you read the CBO, or the IRS estimates for cost of the ACA? www.cbo.gov/publication/44176estimated 180-200 billion a year deficit.... and i believe those numbers are way too low.....a sample of why i think that way below...... The exact cost to build Healthcare.gov and its related systems is difficult to determine due to the expansive nature of the project and the murky details in federal budgets. But based on the figures and details available, here is my best estimate of what this flawed system has cost us: The most clear data comes from a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from June (pdf), which states that the U.S. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) spent “almost $394 million from fiscal year 2010 through March 2013 through contracts” to build the “federally facilitated exchanges” (FFEs) – the complex system that includes Healthcare.gov as well as certain state-based exchanges – the data hub, and other expenditures related to the Obamacare exchange system. While GAO states that the “highest volume” of that $394 million was related to the development of “information technology systems,” a more detailed look at that cost shows that a portion that $394 million was spent on things like call centers and collection services. Take that out, and you’re left with roughly $363 million spent on technology-related costs to the healthcare exchanges – the bulk of which ($88 million) went to CGI Federal, the company awarded a $93.7 million contract to build Healthcare.gov and other technology portions of the FFEs. That’s already a hell of a lot of money, but that does not account for all costs accrued for this project. As the GAO states, the $392 million figure does “not include CMS salaries and other administrative costs” associated with the Obamacare exchanges. In other words, the actual cost for the development and implementation of the total Obamacare exchange system is far higher. We’ve reached out to CMS for an exact figure, but thanks to the government shutdown, we have yet to hear from them on this matter. However, we do know, according to CMS’s 2014 budget request (pdf), that agency spent more than $150 million in 2012 and 2013 in relation to the Affordable Care Act – a lowball figure considering that, in its 2013 budget request (pdf), the agency asked for more than $1 billion in additional funds “needed to support operation infrastructure” and open-enrollment preparations of the FFEs. At this point I can only speculate on the total cost to build out Healthcare.gov and the overall technology portion of the FFEs. Based on the available data, however, a conservative estimate puts the cost so far at over $500 million. Considering the GAO estimates it will cost approximately $2 billion to build-out and operate the FFEs in 2014, this is, if anything, likely far too low. Once we hear back from CMS on this matter, I’ll update this space with more detailed figures above the $363 million we know about for certain. www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 11, 2013 14:34:10 GMT -5
So the shutdown is solely caused by the actions of one party, really? You know, you're right - we should just keep spending money like a teenager with an unlimited credit card and let someone else worry about the bills when they come due. And it's totally ok for one party who is in majority control of two branches of government to tell the minority party to pound sand and keep them away from the bargening table. Silly me. You seem to be seeing a different turn of events than I did. Obama would have negotiated, what he was never going to negotiate on was the ACA. Republicans should have gone after spending and balancing the budget from the beginning. Even most democrats agree that we need to work on balancing the budget. It was literally the stupidest thing they could have done to go after something that they were never going to be able to touch while ignoring the things that would have been up for negotiation. They were the cause of the shutdown because they were freaking idiots thinking the ACA was negotiable. They came to the table asking for something that was non-negotiable and then dared to cry because the other side wouldn't negotiate. The shutdown may still have happened, but they wouldn't have come out of it with these horrible polling numbers if they had been reasonable.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 14:34:51 GMT -5
Speaking of war, does anyone have data on military spending from before we got out of until now? Or maybe even spending back to 2006ish until now? I figure it's easy to get the older data, but not sure about the more recent data.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 11, 2013 14:54:08 GMT -5
I consider myself an independent, but if the Republican party goes down, I like to think there are enough intelligent people out there who will vote against the Democratic party simply for not being willing to negotiate in good faith in the beginning.
I'm probably wrong about that though.
damn....i wish but the last thing that will happen is people voting AGAINST their own interests this is one of the funniest things you have ever said on the board, gd. the people have been voting against their own interests since at least 1950. probably earlier. maybe ALWAYS. not sure about the last claim. but possibly always. No darned kidding! Frankly, I'm doing just fine. If my taxes go up to help someone who isn't doing so fine, I'm not going to whine and pule over it. I take it as a responsibility to my fellow human beings - fellow Americans. Do I like paying for louts and layabouts who won't take responsibility for themselves? Nope. Don't like it one bit. Didn't like doing the work of two in the workplace because one was a lazy bum, but I did it because it was the right thing to do. I've done well and I don't have a problem with giving back and paying forward. When I vote, it is with that principle and that conviction. It won't change because it's who I am. Is it in MY personal best interest to pay more taxes? From a strictly financial viewpoint, probably not; however, that's not my driving force. So, I've been voting against my "best interests" for many years. Instead, I voted my principles and the conviction I'm not alone on this planet, or in this country, and I have a duty to give back. Not everyone has been as fortunate as I've been.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 11, 2013 14:55:25 GMT -5
Speaking of war, does anyone have data on military spending from before we got out of until now? Or maybe even spending back to 2006ish until now? I figure it's easy to get the older data, but not sure about the more recent data. That would be interesting to see, investorbob. I hope someone has the data. I'm multi-tasking right now, but I'll try to do some research later if nobody else has offered up some data.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Oct 11, 2013 15:24:00 GMT -5
Shall we quibble over 100's of millions or hundeds's of billions? csis.org/files/publication/120515_US_Spending_Afghan_War_SIGAR.pdfThe fact remains, however, that if the CRS and OMB figures for FY2001-FY2013 that follow are totaled for all direct spending on the war, they reach $641.7 billion, of which $198.2 billion – or over 30% – will be spent in FY2012 and FY2013. This is an incredible amount of money to have spent with so few controls, so few plans, so little auditing, and almost no credible measures of effectiveness. It is also clear that the end effect has been to sharply raise the threshold of corruption in Afghanistan, to make transition planning far more difficult, and raise the risk that sudden funding cuts will undermine the Afghan government’s ability to maintain a viable economy and effective security forces. If the Tea Party and the Republicans wanted to be taken seriously they'd be willing to cut most spending inlcuded the sacred and bloated military budget. IMO we shouldn't have fought the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. And having made the decision to do so, it could have been planned IMO to be done in 5 years or less. But war is very profitable for some people and politicians so here we are.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Oct 11, 2013 15:38:19 GMT -5
For Ibob, courtesy of my friend Google. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_WarAppropriations[edit]See also: Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War. FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[4][5] FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[6] FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[7] FY2010 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[8] It is unclear why no breakdowns are offered on the basis of each war www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-03/iraq-war-lives-on-as-second-costliest-u-s-conflict-fuels-debt.htmlThat burden will come amid growing concern about the federal government’s debt, with cuts to popular programs such as Medicare and to national defense being debated. Spending so far on the war and related interest payments make up about a tenth of the U.S. Treasury’s $10.4 trillion in publicly held debt. Direct federal spending on the war through 2012 will reach $823 billion, surpassing the $738 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars the U.S. spent on the Vietnam War, the Congressional Research Service estimated in a March 29 report. Only World War II had a higher direct cost, $4.1 trillion, in current dollars.
|
|