I-495 Closure Update



WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Will U.S. Government shutdown only further isolate the Tea Party movement?

Now nearly inevitable: A partial shutdown of the U.S. Government.

While one can never predict these things with absolute certainty, it would seem a government shutdown will only further marginalize the Tea Party movement nationally, yet accentuate its appeal in those rabidly red, conservative Congressional districts.

Add to that if the debt ceiling isn't resolved, and Wall Street and global economic markets have a coniption.

This analysis from The NEW REPUBLIC pretty much nails it...


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114915/government-shutdown-will-be-much-worse-republicans-1996

Posted at 7:56am on September 30, 2013 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts



Comments on this post:

kavips
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 8:08am
The way America will see it, is if you are driving down the road and your passenger suddenly grabs the wheel and pulls it to the right, and you run off the road into a ditch, it is that passenger's fault, and not the driver's.

No matter how much bloviating the passenger says over whether the driver should have just taken his hands off that wheel instead of trying to get the car back on the road, will not matter.

The officer will cite the passenger for the accident.... Republicans will probably lose both houses, governorships, and never be heard again for 65 years because of this....


billsmith
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 8:22am
Especially if the economy goes into the tank because of this. Republicans have a history of not doing well after depressions.

But the Tea Dummies will be happy and that's all they care about.

If there's a depression because of all this, Obama won't be looking good either. He was in the Senate for only two years, but didn't show up much because he was too busy running for president. As a result, he is completely inept at dealing with legislators and the legislative process.

LBJ was the master of Congress while he was in the Senate and he could handle the Tea Bigots' predecessors, the Southern Democrats. Not Obama. He's even more inept than Kennedy was (and for the same reasons). And notice Biden hasn't been any help, either. He has always been over-rated as a Senator by the lapdog local media that wanted to inflate his importance to inflate their own (and to pander to Delaware's statewide inferiority complex).

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 8:29am
Kavips: Good analogy. I don't know about 65 years [Americans have a much shorter memory than they used to have years ago - probably all that TV watching], but the rest of it is probably correct.

The question I have for those who hate Obamacare so much that they'd gladly watch the government shut down, the nation not pay its outstanding bills, and probably get our financial rating lowered thus again, not to mention the havoc it will have on our economy and the world's economy is:

Are you sad that you'll have Social Security and Medicare when you retire? Most folks, other then the truly wealthy, are glad to have both programs as senior citizens. Yet, the same types of folks back in the 1930's and 1960's rallied against those respective programs. So once Obamacare gets off the ground, people will receive the intended benefits and just like Social Security and Medicare, folks will be glad we have it. That's why the big push now to unfund it. Because once folks start getting the benefits of Obamacare, the G.O.P. will never convince folks to get rid of it [The G.O.P knows this from their failed attempts to get rid of Social Security and Medicare].

What I believe the issue is, partly is that all of those programs were implimented by Democrats, so the DEMS get the credit for them [FDR - New Deal/Social Security, LBJ - Medicare, and now Obama - and the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare].

Sadly for the G.O.P., Obamacare was a Republican plan originally, but the ultra rightwing of their party prevented it ever being seriously considered until the DEMS reintroduced it in the Obama presidency. So the G.O.P. could have claimed it as theirs many years ago, but instead would rather let the DEMS have it as they are doing and it will now be considered a DEM program like Social Security and Medicare. Once again proving that the G.O.P. is not for the best interests of the little guy [working-class folks], but for the robber-barrons and wealthy folks.

EarlGrey
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 11:39am
I wonder how many people (besides news-junkies like most here) are really paying attention to any of this?

Mike: Just because many years ago Republicans wanted more government-intrusive health-care doesn't mean it was a good idea. I wasn't a big fan of Bush's increase of government's size and am not a fan of this president's intent to increase governmental involvement in our daily lives.

The question many honest Democrats, Republicans, and Independents need to ask is this...would they still support the policy if someone from the opposite side of the political aisle instituted it or if the "other side" comes into power within the next election cycle? Do you really want a powerful Republican president/administration having the same power as a Democrat? I doubt it and I myself don't trust either side with that much power...ultimate power corrupts ultimately.

JimH
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 11:56am
All of this could have been avoided if the person being paid to be President of the United States had simply done his job. And that job is not to fly around making speeches every day. It is to direct his cabinet secretaries, department heads, and staff to draft a budget each year. He has only done that once and the U.S. Senate sent it down in flames because it was pure nonsense. If Mr. Obama is not capable of doing his job, then the government SHOULD be shut down until he grows up and takes responsibility for the job he is being paid to do.

I know he takes a dim view of actually doing some work. But until he becomes an adult, the government is going to be dysfunctional.

EarlGrey
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 12:09pm
Both the Democrats and the media are convinced that the public will blame Republicans for the government shutdown.
The media blamed the G.O.P. back in 1996 for causing the shutdown...but the voters didn't seem to have the same view. At the next election...Republicans retained their majorities in Congress. (The Senate G.O.P. even picked up 2 seats, in a year in which Clinton won re-election)

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 1:24pm
EarlGrey: The other question the G.O.P. needs to answer in a clear way is how do we as a society provide health-care coverage for those who have pre-exisiting conditions, or cannot afford to buy health-care insurance as their employers don't offer it, OTHER than them simply going to the ER and you and I paying for that, OR Obamacare? Surely there must be another way, but let's be really honest here: The G.O.P. doesn't really have a plan other than that half-baked thing they quickly came up with last week, that offers no details, etc. Just pie in the sky.

Bottom-line: Insurance companies are not going to take those with pre-existing conditions unless the GOVERNMENT requires them to, so on some level there will have to be some government intervention, a thing TEA folks totally oppose.

kavips
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 1:41pm
Earl brings up a valid point. However that evidence should be weighted with the knowledge that his total was achieved by having 3 Senate races flip Republican and 1 flip to the Democrats giving up a net gain of 2.

Often one puts too much attention on party affiliation. Occasionally a state party runs a really bad candidate as did the Republicans in Delaware during the 2010. Some on this thread have even stated that had Castle run instead, that 2010 flip would not have occurred.

In the 3 wins, all three Democrats retired in Southern states, which were controlled by heavily Republican majorities. Those Democrats originally elected during the Dixiecrat era had simply held on to their seats as has Tom Carper here.

The surprise was that a Democrat was able to carry South Dakota, and that was probably due to a national distaste for anything Republican.

Further information: the Dem's won 2 additional seats in the House (rare for a second term president across the average) The Dem's picked up or held onto 7 governor ships; the Rep's 4.

To judge the full extent of the public's hatred for Republicans back in 1996, one should look at a race not influenced by local politics, such as the Presidential campaign results. Did Clinton's veto of Newt's irrational budget taint the president?

Let us put it this way... The Democrats even carried Arizona! West Virginia! Arkansas! Missouri! Louisiana! Tennessee! Kentucky!

Hopefully those states' Republicans are prepared to lose next fall as well...

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 3:14pm
Part of the problem with this is most of us do have health-care insurance from our employers, so we really do not benefit by Obamacare [I didn't get the check in the mail that was touted]. My employer continues to raise the rates each year [I'll find out this November how much more for 2014]. Another thing to consider - and EarlGrey mentioned it vaguely - is that most of us do vote with our wallets. That's why no politician in his/her right mind will campaign on raising taxes in an election year.

So that is the one hope the G.O.P. does have, that more folks will say I'm not hurting, so why should I want to vote for Obamacare, especially if I'm going to have to pay higher taxes, etc.? Based on the info EarlGrey posted about the votes in the election after Newt and company shut down the government, maybe the G.O.P. isn't taking that big of a risk after all.

I know folks who need medical insurance, who do have pre-existing conditions (they are the reason I believe we need Obamacare or some variation on it), so folks like that can get the care they need. As far as I know, I will not benefit by Obamacare, but still believe it or something like it needs to happen for those other folks. I'm open to better ideas, and that's where the G.O.P. seems to fall far short.

billsmith
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 7:11pm
What we have with the TP/RR people is extreme selfishness and indifference. AM right-wing talk radio is for geezers and biddies, angry and working class. They've got Medicare but they don't want anybody else to have health coverage. The motto of the TP/RR should be "Hooray for me; to hell with you." "I'm alright; screw you."

Watch out. The rest of you are so nasty that MikeFromDelaware is so appalled he's turning liberal.

mrpizza
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 7:22pm
I don't know if GOP/TEA will win or lose in 2014, but I'm glad to see a politician like Ted Cruz stand at the Alamo for what's right and let the chips fall where they may.

It's all a matter of conscience.

EarlGrey
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 10:06pm
Mike: The Republicans have a plan that keeps some of the good parts from the ACA (like pre-existing condition coverage, insuring "kids" till their 20's). The Republican plan also offers state-to-state insurance competition and personal health-care not tied to one's job and thus portable...removing the fear of changing jobs. How many people stay at their current jobs for the benefits, but hate their actual jobs?

Why is it we can we shop around for the best car insurance and homeowner's/renter's insurance coverage for our family's needs... and none are tied to our employment/employer?

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 10:52pm
EarlGrey: What about the uninsured, those who go to the ER that we all pay for while they freeload off of us? Obamacare gets them insurance too, which will save all of us money.

Those things you mention sound good; where have they been for the past three years? It seems strange that the G.O.P. finally comes up with a competing plan of sorts one week from the date Obamacare officially kicks in. It comes across more like just a stalling tactic than a serious proposal.

I remember Newt's Contract on America. One key plank of that contract was term limits. The G.O.P. showed how honorable & honest they are when after winning that election, the G.O.P. said, "We won so we don't need term limits any longer."

So given how they'll say anything to get their way, and I haven't forgotten that lie from the Gingrich Congress, I don't believe the G.O.P. is serious about providing a workable health-care program. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

kavips
Tue, Oct 1, 2013 7:21am
Earl. Health insurance was originally offered as a perk, to help one's competitiveness against one's competitors in the labor pool. Originally it was endorsed by those companies because it also, as does a pension, work to keep long-term employees on board.

One of the side benefits, was that because of the larger pool, the risk factor was lower and insurance would cost less when sold to an employer, than if one bought an existing policy. Especially if someone had a pre-existing condition.

The biggest difference between then and now was that most hospitals back then were non-profit. Originally there was no incentive to add unnecessary tests to jack up the price.

Quite simply, as medical costs rose, insurance companies had to scramble ahead of them and raise the revenue to be able to pay for them.

Businesses were getting socked, so they put pressure on insurance companies to cut costs, and co-pays, deductibles, managed care became the response.

As people began paying more out-of-pocket, they pressed for change, blaming the insurance companies for taking too much off the top.

And so we arrived at the point, where it became a campaign issue, and the person winning the election was bound to tackle the problem.

The Affordable Care Act was put together "by committee" and therefore has a lot of moving parts. But, each part was vetted and agreed to by those opposed, so they really are not that bad in scope. (Not as if they were mandated by a dictatorial power). Of course this makes it ironic that the name Obamacare has stuck, because essentially, the White House had very little to do with its making.

It said, "you should do this", and "here is what we think should go into it" and signed the official product; that is the quick explanation of its entire involvement.

But the bill was put together primarily by lobbyists from the medical profession, the insurance profession, and consumer advocates. They all said they could sign on, and the Congress passed it on the lines of whether they were willing to give Obama credit for it, or not.

It is a good bill. Or about as good as one can get out of a committee..

And the prediction is that as businesses get anxious to shed the yoke of health-care, the government will be given more and more responsibility out of necessity.

A business that must pay the premiums of its employees, has to be even more efficient elsewhere, when it competes globally against those nations where the government provides health-care, and does not saddle its businesses with the cost.

We will probably see single payer in our lifetimes, primarily at the behest of American businesses.


billsmith
Tue, Oct 1, 2013 8:41am
OK, the TP/RR crowd says they don't want to be required to get health insurance and start talking about "freedom."
Fine. Here's the deal. Health insurance is optional. Completely voluntary. At age 26, you have a 90-day sign-up period under terms like those of the Affordable Care Act.
If you don't sign, you have no insurance. Hospitals can refuse to treat you. Even emergency care. They can demand cash on the barrel head up front. If you decide later on you want insurance, insurance companies can turn you down for all the reasons they've used up to now (like pre-existing conditions) or for no reason at all. And you have to pay all the back premiums from age 26 (Easy payment plans available).

Lotsa luck. Stay healthy.

Also whatever employers kick into your health insurance should be taxed as personal income (and you should be able to take the amount in cash and use as you want).

kavips
Tue, Oct 1, 2013 6:44pm
Just a casual unscientific observation... but I have heard so many people who NEVER utter a word about politics, totally shred the Tea Party and Republicans today. Getting totally angry even.

Perhaps we are finally making progress.

mrpizza
Tue, Oct 1, 2013 8:56pm
MFD: Theoretically.

kavips
Tue, Oct 1, 2013 11:46pm
As for isolating the Tea Party... Let me let you in on what New York's Peter King had to say about the shutdown....

Thats Ted Cruzs fault. Ted Cruz led us down this path. This was a disaster from the start, King said. I could have predicted this and this is what the leadership predicted three weeks ago when they said they would never pursue defunding because it was going to work against us and wed be blamed. But Ted Cruz insisted that his people follow him, and we did it, and thats why were in this position. Its his fault, and he wants us to get him out of it. Listen Im saying the president should negotiate, but I m saying that this was caused by Ted Cruz and his acolytes in the House of Representatives. They led us down this dead end street.

King continued battering Cruz, citing other prominent Republicans who had attacked Cruzs strategy in the past.

Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove, Tom Coburn, all solid conservatives said this was a terrible policy to begin with, King said. We had a Republican Senator say it was the dopiest idea theyd ever heard. Ted Cruz is to blame, and those in the House who stand with him have brought about this train wreck. Its up to us to try to get it out and its up to the president to step in and stop standing on the sidelines.

And a quote from Trent Lott....

"I'm of two minds," Lott said. "I'd like to be in the arena and help work something out. But it's gotten too nasty and too mean these days. I couldn't work with these guys." "That Ted Cruz. They have to teach him something or cut his legs out from under him."

This was un-named but came out of the Republican House Caucus...."Nancy Pelosi is more well-liked around here."
GOP aide (National Review)

Still proud to be a Republican guys?.. It is getting worse for you by every minute... lol.. :)

mrpizza
Wed, Oct 2, 2013 8:12pm
I couldn't care less what Peter King has to say. He's a traitor and should switch over to the Democrats.

kavips
Sun, Oct 6, 2013 1:31am
Same with Ted Cruz. He's the biggest traitor since Benedict Arnold. He should switch over to Soviet Russia.


Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
Username:
Password:
Comment:
 










Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach