zer0netgain wrote:
The Republicans (Tea Party) should have stuck to their demand to defund/delay the ACA on the principle that it was economically unsustainable and not compromise.
An extended US government shutdown is economically unsustainable. The ACA was designed to be self-funding after the initial costs of implementation. The more things that are taken out of it, the less that will be the case.
zer0netgain wrote:
For the argument of economic impact alone, it would be utterly reasonable to not fund or implement the ACA UNTIL AFTER a current balanced budget from Obama was put into effect. New laws shouldn't be put in place based on a continuing spending resolution.
The ACA was already law and the funds used for its implementation were not part of this budget in any way.
zer0netgain wrote:
If the Republicans/Tea Party just stuck to that one issue, kept screaming about it, didn't get distracted, and demanded that Obama either compromise or get off his butt and draft a budget proposal that was BALANCED for the House to process, I think public opinion would have been on their side more than it is now.
I personally think that the opposite is true. And as for a balanced draft, there were several drafts that were rejected based entirely on the fact that the House Republican (plus Cruz) demands were not met, despite many concessions asked for by Senate Republicans being included.
zer0netgain wrote:
ACA is unsustainable. Discussion over. We don't have a current budget. Discussion over. We need a balanced budget that will get us away from growing national debt. Discussion over.
On the national debt (from Wikipedia):
Quote:
Except for about a year during 1835–1836, the United States has continuously held a public debt since the US Constitution legally went into effect on March 4, 1789. Public debt as a percentage of GDP reached its highest level during Harry Truman's first presidential term, during and after World War II, but fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. Debt as a percentage of GDP has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
As for the deficits, they have been going down each year under Obama, so don't pretend that government spending has been going up:
FY 2013 (est): $973 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
In fact, since Nixon, the deficits rise the most during Republican presidencies and drop the most during Democrat presidencies, so careful with your arguments.
zer0netgain wrote:
By not sticking with a single issue and forcing the other side to blink first, they just proved that they can be bullied into giving Obama and the Democrats whatever they demand.
You do realize that that is precisely why the Democrats refused to budge on defunding the ACA, don't you? Don't worry, though, I imagine this will play out in a similar way three months from now.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
Last edited by sonofghandi on 17 Oct 2013, 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
17 Oct 2013, 7:35 am
