http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57606253/debt-ceiling-understanding-whats-at-stake/
Read all that so you can understand. Also ignore the quip about "perhaps going into recession". We never left the stupid recession, these people just can't shut up about everything allegedly getting better despite no proof.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
By my logic? No. I don't know how you're going to default thanks to the Democrats. Or the Republicans. Or anyone, cuz I genuinely am in the dark as to what's going to happen upon default. And don't make fun of that, I'm Canadian. I can only pay attention to so such much of your Yankee hullabaloo.
Spoiler:
The prediction is that expenditure on enacting and enforcing Obamacare provisions will ultimately force the federal government to default on our debt.
Oh, that default. That's related. I thought there was something else looming I hadn't heard about.
I don't know about the long-term fiscal costs of Obamacare. But I feel that's a far greyer issue than the GOP's anti-ACA-induced shutdown. Their prediction may wind up accurate (or not) and their ostensible intention may be good... but if they enact those intentions by essentially holding hostage the very people they would otherwise claim to represent and care about (lol), screwing over countless millions of them through direct and indirect means... then the GOP is the villain of this particularly storybook.
That CBS link nailed the larger problem: the issue of cutting spending/raising taxes. Obamacare and its costs are just a small part of this much deeper issue. And as I said in the GDF thread about the shutdown, if there's one thing that I think taxation (and federal money as a whole) should be spent on, it's the health of the people (Obamacare is a stepping stone in Universal, I hope). But your system is so bloated and inefficient, and mired by oft-radical partisan politics that shit doesn't get changed soon enough. And when it does, it takes years of procedure while the opposite team cries foul and bogs everything down with whatever they've got. In the most recent case, a federal level shutdown.
On that front, I agree. Both parties are to blame. But it's in the sense that your overall government and national character which produces such division is to blame. On the particular case of the GOP-induced shutdown... well it's all GOP. Again, in the hope of warding off a potential evil they believe may happen in the future, they've opted to cause quite a bit of evil on purpose right now.
I don't know about the long-term fiscal costs of Obamacare. But I feel that's a far greyer issue than the GOP's anti-ACA-induced shutdown. Their prediction may wind up accurate (or not) and their ostensible intention may be good... but if they enact those intentions by essentially holding hostage the very people they would otherwise claim to represent and care about (lol), screwing over countless millions of them through direct and indirect means... then the GOP is the villain of this particularly storybook.
That CBS link nailed the larger problem: the issue of cutting spending/raising taxes. Obamacare and its costs are just a small part of this much deeper issue. And as I said in the GDF thread about the shutdown, if there's one thing that I think taxation (and federal money as a whole) should be spent on, it's the health of the people (Obamacare is a stepping stone in Universal, I hope). But your system is so bloated and inefficient, and mired by oft-radical partisan politics that shit doesn't get changed soon enough. And when it does, it takes years of procedure while the opposite team cries foul and bogs everything down with whatever they've got. In the most recent case, a federal level shutdown.
Even being a dirty communist hippie, I'm in favor of a two-tier system for healthcare. One publicly funded, the other private. I hate the thought of all medical practitioners and patients being limited to the options the state allows. If you need healthcare, the rest of the country's got your back. If you want something personally specialized and just for you, and your budget allows it, go right ahead. I've read a number of cases of Canadians traveling down to the States to receive treatment that our public hospitals couldn't provide (in some manner or another). But those people could also afford to travel and pay for treatment. One thing we thankfully lack that the States have in abundance is a massive chunk of our population being ruined with healthcare debts.
Like I said, ideologically, I'm all in favor of UHC (at least in some brand), so Obamacare I see as a stepping stone. But the hurdles in the way are a country with an ungodly debt, a raging hard-on for radicalized partisan politics, and a national terror toward change. The lack of funds that those elements have created in the States makes Obamacare a big risk, one that might not pay off. I get that. But it's just not worth grinding the entire federal government to a halt over. Especially when the only people being hurt by it are the laymen who are supposed to be the be-all-end-all for these politicos. Throw on top of that it's all in attempt to stymie a bill that has been approved of by all three branches of government and was days away from coming in to effect.
Originally posted by The_TempestSpoiler:
The prediction is that expenditure on enacting and enforcing Obamacare provisions will ultimately force the federal government to default on our debt.
Additionally, above and beyond a potential situation where ACA is the "straw that breaks the camel's back," there is also the imminent threat where in 10 days, the US automatically defaults on the debt unless a specific bill is passed (and the Republicans are refusing to pass it).
Originally posted by mstanford2912
I'm asking you to prove how it's a terrorist attack. You're asking me how it's not? Try not asking me a negative.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I'm legitimately asking a question. Terrorism is defined as the use of fear to achieve a political or religious goal. Why do you think that the Republicans threatening to let the budget drop if Obamacare isn't modified doesn't count as using fear to achieve a political goal?
Another way that a war on a concept makes no f*cking sense.
It's by definition terrorism. The perpetrators may not be wearing robes or screaming Allahu Akbar! or blowing something up, but they are using fear to obtain what they want. Like, overtly, actively using fear. They're demanding that things be done their way or else is a non-violent act of terrorism.