Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cost of shutdown $200 million a day, by one estimate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-02-13 04:47 AM
Original message
Cost of shutdown $200 million a day, by one estimate
Edited on Wed Oct-02-13 04:48 AM by No Elephants
Only in America.

(Heard on the Daily Show)
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-02-13 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hey, we have plenty of money for things the GOP want.
Like in Afghanistan and Iraq, cost plus contractors where money was no object. $7,000 dollars per month to lease GMC SUVs. And these weren't special armored SUVs. Anagram hand towels for the soldiers at $40 each. But Dubya's cronies were being supported (rewarded). Free money! This is the sort of thing we ignored when we "looked forward".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-02-13 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Can you think of any sane reason why government that is fully operative should cost less
than government that is shut down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-03-13 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. No, but the government does
worthy things. If we don't want a government, why even bother to have a country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-03-13 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Questioning claims about the cost of shut down
is not advocating anarchy.


BTW, between Monday and Wednesday, the estimate of the cost went up by a $100 million a day.

Finding it harder and harder to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-03-13 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. PS, Can you imagine if Medicare for all had gone into effect a couple of years ago and
any politician even mentioned repealing it?

Since we know how to do Medicare, we just would have had to gear up for bigger numbers. It probably could have gone into effect at the beginning of 2012, if not sooner.

Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-04-13 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Fox could have called it Obamakenyanmedicare to scare the minions.
Edited on Fri Oct-04-13 04:51 AM by Enthusiast
I am thoroughly convinced all this is a bullshit smokescreen kabuki stealth corporate-NSA-catfood commission black op designed to fuck us over even more than they already have.

Is it so they can finish up secret negotiations for the destructive trade deals while we are distracted? Is it so the President can appoint Alan Simpson to head up social security while we aren't looking? Are they planning a new spectacular terrorist attack on the nation? Look over here, there is nothing going on over there. Maybe they are trying to provoke the American people to rise up against the government so they can win and install their special ultra-constitutional right wing brand of governance with Tea Party NRA concealed carry and justice for all. Justice for all? What am I thinking!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-04-13 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. IMO, Obama's appointments don't need any help from the other legacy party.
I agree that media have been focusing on everything but the TPP and other ways of sticking to the 99% even more, even my favorite Daily Show, a comedy show that is more evenhanded than either O'Reilly or Maddow.

"Maybe they are trying to provoke the American people to rise up against the government"

The only reason they would want to do that is thinning the herd. I doubt they are averse to that, but they have other ways of doing it and they probably want to wait until the TPP is in place.

They have already ensured it will be a massacre if we do rise up.

BTW, who do you see rising up? The left, which has stayed far away from weapons, learning how to use weapons? The left, that sneers at survivalists who stock up on bottled water and canned foods?

And how are we going to get a national movement going? The internet? Telephones? I bet people at NSA or the CIA or some one of the many domestic spying agencies can even defeat the Wind Talkers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-04-13 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. ...
"Fox could have called it Obamakenyanmedicare to scare the minions."

Part of my hypothesis was that it could have been in place by the beginning of 2012 Even if a three word bill "Medicare for all" , took as long to enact as did the 2000 plus page Obamacare, which took until March 2010 to pass by reconciliation.

If it had been in place since the beginning of 2012, Romney would never have gotten so close to the Oval Office and you could have called it Obamapoop until September 2013 and no one would allow discussion of repeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-05-13 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Maybe the implementation of Obamacare was delayed
so that it could be watered down so it would better meet with corporate approval. You know, like Dodd-Frank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-05-13 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. As soon as I heard about the effective back in 2009, I thought it was to kick in
Edited on Sat Oct-05-13 11:30 AM by No Elephants
after the 2012 Presidential election (or, as it turned out, the Presidential re-election).

If you notice, the best parts of Obamacare went effective before the election. Kids on their parents' insurance and insurance for those with pre-existing conditions.

The worst part of Obamacare is the individual mandate and the worst impact of the mandate is on the young and healthy, who voted for Obama in 2008. So, those subject to the mandate--especially those too young to be grateful for insurance--may not be thrilled about the mandate or Obamacare in general. And the youth vote was important to Obama's victory in 2008.

Rather than risk finding out for sure in November 2012, kick it over to the start of the next fiscal year.

Also, maybe the waivers don't look that good to either Party.

On a different, but related, topic, the Supremes put an obstacle in one of the best parts of Obamacare, namely expansion of Medicaid. (I am not sure, but the coverage may be as good or even better than Medicare.) States that refused to expand Medicaid were supposed to lose all Medicaid funds. For reasons I still don't understand, the Supremes said that was not okay. So, now, thanks to the Supremes, states can refuse to expand Medicaid without penalty.

I should read the case again. When the case was first put online, I read it, but stopped after Roberts said that the government is within its power to require us to buy stuff from private vendors or pay a new "tax."

The reasoning was not limited to health insurance, either. It's a horrifying precedent, the exact opposite of liberal, which is what fools were calling Roberts' decision.

Anyway, I literally got nauseous thinking about the slippery slope that the SCOTUS had created in order to uphold the mandate and I could not bear to read further. Have not gone back to the opinion since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-06-13 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. BTW, I wonder if the Dodd Frank regulations are even completed yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-07-13 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Parts of Dodd-Frank have not been implemented.
The financial powers that be are still trying to undermine several significant aspects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-09-13 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I didn't think there were many significant aspects to begin with.
Then again, I am not American Express or BankAmerica and don't even play them on TV.

If Congress wanted significant aspects of anything, they'd start by restoring Glass Steagall and a lot of the other New Deal legislation both sides have been busy dismantling. Ditto Great Society legislation.

They can blame each other, but the fact is that legislation requires both houses of Congress and the President. Though Republicans elected a lot of Presidents, Democrats effectively controlled Congress until Gingrich became Speaker. And both before and after Gingrich became speaker, the 60 vote rule has given one side or the other, in effect, a veto.

So, Republicans should stop blaming Democrats for everything. Ditto Democrats blaming Republicans. It's been plutocrats against every one else since before the Mayflower pulled up to the shores of Plymouth (or Plimoth, as it was then "spelt").
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC