U.S. Politics, 8

[Bill Foote]

Also, strictly speaking, Goldman didn't get that much of a handout. They didn't need it. And, strictly speaking, taxpayers have gotten over 20% back on what we loaned them.

Extraordinary claim, no extraordinary evidence...

[Shryke]

I'd agree that corporations do not want government interference, but at the same time, why set up these networks in the first place if not to encourage government assistance?

To encourage government staying out of their way. To encourage government to pass policy that makes what they want to do easier.

But really, you are making a huge false assumption here: that someone "sets up" these networks in the first place.

They aren't set up, they just happen. You work here at A, then you work there at B, but you still know a bunch of buddies from A. There, your network is formed. And if your buddy from A needs some help that you can provide by way of B, you do your buddy a favor. ("Buddy" here could also read "Campaign Contributor" or some such)

There are quotes galore. Because they were lying. You don't come out and say "We knew you suckers would pick up the bill." You say "Oh woe is me, no one could have known this would happen."

Except they aren't some nefarious fucking Cobra-Commander-esque evil schemers. They didn't crash the market to get a handout, they just assumed they were smart enough not to crash the market. Or they bought their own bullshit. And they figured that, hell, even on the crazy off chance it does all come tumbling down, we'll get bailed out. But mostly they figured that would never happen or that they'd get out before it did. (Turns out everyone but Goldman-Sachs just wasn't fast enough)

The problem is both of you are continually trying to simplify the whole issue by attaching some over-riding concept of INTENT to the whole schebang. There is no overall intent, no overall plan. It's a bunch of people making stupid and short-sighted decisions because the government didn't stop them from doing so.

People reaping private profit, but socialized risk? That doesn't resemble capitalism whatsoever.

No, it resembles what happens without a regulated market.

Risks are always socialised because we need these institutions for our economy to run.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

In any case, I don't intend to re-argue the merits of the ACA - it's law and that's that - but I don't think you appreciate just how difficult repeal would be. First of all, the thing has to pass the House, and I am not clear that every single Republican member would vote for it. Then it's got to pass the Senate, which would be impossible with a Democratic majority and - thanks to the filibuster - nearly impossible with anything less than a filibuster-proof Republican majority. Even if those things were to happen, the GOP would have to either get Obama to sign off (snicker) or override his veto (guffaw).

Oh, I think repeal prior to 2012 is impossible. Gumming up the works may happen, though.

Even if the GOP takes back the White House in 2013 there would still be the filibuster to contend with, and in any case by then many of the benefits of the law would have been in place for years. By then, I imagine any imperative for repeal will have cooled considerably.

They might just bypass the filibuster, as people here were arguing the Democrats should have done with the entire bill. But don't the biggest "benefits", in terms of the subsidies and coverage of the uninsured not really kick in until after 2012 anyway?

Besides, if there is one thing I know about Americans it's that they hate to give up their government-sponsored benefits.

Oh, I agree, but they're a lot more willing to give up other people's taxpayer-provided benefits. Many people who already have coverage of their own are not going to be thrilled about the prospect of providing health care coverage to other people. What could get chopped is the whole coverage of the uninsured, which supposedly was the key point of the bill.

I'd like to know who in the GOP is going to tell senior citizens that the doughnut hole is being reopened, or 25-year-olds that their insurance coverage through Mom and Dad is going away.

They don't have to. Much of the cost of covering the uninsured was from cuts in Medicare. If you drop the coverage, you can plug the donut hole and still have plenty left over. I think the whole 25 year old thing is ridiculous, but they don't even have to get rid of that. Just kill off the subsidies.

I think the GOP would be wise to simply recognize that the ACA is law and work to make the law more efficient and effective. However, if John Boehner and Eric Cantor want to waste their efforts tilting at legislative windmills...well, it means they're taking time away from other, more harmful plans that are actually possible to achieve.

Well, I can understand why you'd like them to take that approach, but I don't think that's what's going to happen. And I don't think it's a legislative windmill given the current anger over government spending. As I said, the primary beneficiaries of this ultimately will be the uninsured, and they're far from a majority. I also suspect a pretty large percentage vote Democrat already.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

T, I'm pretty sure Wall Street was on track to make a lot more than a $40 billion payout from the goverment that didn't even cover their losses.

That's $40 billion per company. No one but Exxon/Mobil makes that. And they weren't on track to make it because the market they were playing was destined to fail. They rode the wave 'til it broke then bailed out.

And I assure you, Wall Street does not love the government. You can make a good case why they should, but they certainly don't.

Of course they do. The government is their retirement program. When they get tired of congressional hearings and shareholder meetings, they get a nice job at the Treasury department, and set to work writing more regulations and brokering more deals that benefit their former companies.

The government is Wall Street's tool. They write regulations to discourage their competition while providing legal cover for them to be nefarious. They work as a private ATM for the banks (They can get a 0% loan from the Fed, can you get a 0% loan from anywhere?). When Wall Street comes up cash-strapped, they get bailed out. The government has caused large-scale banking to be an essentially risk-free enterprise.

[Guest Raidne]

T, we'll just have to say that we disagree about basic facts.

[The Progressive]

To, one can assume, deflect attention from what the Health Care Bill is up to, the GOP has released it's Contract With AmericaPledge To America.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39314078/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

It's .... yeah, it's exactly the bullshit you expect.

I also notice the utter lack of mention about any balanced budget amendment or ban on earmarks, two of the Repubs' favorite talkingpoints.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

T, we'll just have to say that we disagree about basic facts.

If you would quit being so gosh-darned wrong about stuff, we wouldn't have this problem. :box:

[Guest Raidne]

If you would quit being so gosh-darned wrong about stuff, we wouldn't have this problem. :box:

Well, the facts get tricky, because I want to say that since most of these firms have already paid it all back, you get the idea of the kind of profits they were making and expecting. But you have to factor in things like Goldman paying the government back with its own money vis a vis AIG and stuff like that.

And we kind of agree on one thing - you think we should have let everyone who was going to fail, fail. I think we should have done targeted bailouts involving about a quarter or less of the assets that were actually expended. For a time, I assumed it was so complicated that nobody could tell what was what, but now I realize that's not at all true. So we both agree that it should have gone differently and my position is different now than it was a year ago.

[TrackerNeil]

Oh, I think repeal prior to 2012 is impossible. Gumming up the works may happen, though.

They might just bypass the filibuster, as people here were arguing the Democrats should have done with the entire bill. But don't the biggest "benefits", in terms of the subsidies and coverage of the uninsured not really kick in until after 2012 anyway?

I've been giving it some thought and research, and I'm not sure there's a whole lot Republicans can do to "gum up the works." Assuming they control Congress, they can sort of nibble here and there, but most of that will affect the parts of the law that make it deficit-neutral. For example, they can refuse to fund extended tax collection or IPAB, but that won't affect the mandate or the other portions of the law. It'll just contribute to the deficit. (Not that Republicans have ever flinched from debt spending.) The mandate will remain, and the states will still be required to set up exchanges and meet federal benchmarks. I guess the GOP could turn off the money faucet and shift the entire burden to the states, but I wonder how well that would go over. Republican governors sure wouldn't be thanking the party for that present.

Remember, also, that budgets need Senate and presidential approval, and it seems unlikely that Obama is going to sign off on a budget that significantly "gums up" the ACA. Perhaps Speaker Boehner (shiver) will decide to shut down the government over it, but then that didn't work out so well for Newt Gingrich.

As to your second point, I assume you're referring to reconciliation. Reconciliation is not a magic word that makes the filibuster go away; bills have to be of a specific type to qualify for that parliamentary tactic. I'm not familiar with the rules, but I recall that passing bills through reconciliation is difficult and restricted to certain kinds of work, and I am far from certain a repeal of the ACA would qualify.

[DanteGabriel]

As to your second point, I assume you're referring to reconciliation. Reconciliation is not a magic word that makes the filibuster go away; bills have to be of a specific type to qualify for that parliamentary tactic. I'm not familiar with the rules, but I recall that passing bills through reconciliation is difficult and restricted to certain kinds of work, and I am far from certain a repeal of the ACA would qualify.

Pretty funny that the Republicans are now talking about gutting the health care reform bill through reconciliation after their assumed takeover of Congress in November, since they were claiming reconciliation was a tool of tyranny just a year ago.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/top-republicans-warm-to-reconciliationfor-repealing-health-care-reform.php?ref=fpblg

ETA: As usual, it's okay if a Republican does it.

[alguien]

To be fair, both sides are famous for claiming that reconciliation is an unethical legislative tactic.

Except when they do it. ;)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

To be fair, both sides are famous for claiming that reconciliation is an unethical legislative tactic.

Except when they do it. ;)

And war is wrong when the other side does it. Very, very wrong. But neither side wants to change the rules to make it harder to do.

[lokisnow]

they could start by eliminating the Department of Homeland Security and either canceling medicare part D or changing the regulations so that the government is allowed to bargain for lower prices. That'd save trillions.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

They could also stop garrisoning the planet, subsidizing corn, subsidizing oil companies, and stop paying the Federal Reserve to loan us our own money.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Remember, also, that budgets need Senate and presidential approval

The budget really doesn't have much to do with it. In fact, I don't think Congress even voted on a budget this year. The key issue is specific appropriations bills.

and it seems unlikely that Obama is going to sign off on a budget that significantly "gums up" the ACA. Perhaps Speaker Boehner (shiver) will decide to shut down the government over it, but then that didn't work out so well for Newt Gingrich.

I doubt Boehner would be as petty as Ginrich in whining about where he sits on Air Force 1, and this isn't 1996.

More importantly, this would be much more narrow than what Gingrich tried to do. It would affect only one major appropriation bill, or at most two . And all it would mean is that the spending bill Congress would pass wouldn't have money in it for the ACA. If Obama vetoed it, he'd be shutting the parts of the government about which Democrats care the most.

As to your second point, I assume you're referring to reconciliation.

No, I'm referring to what some folks here argued should be done when they were trying to pass the bill -- simply change or suspend the rules regarding cloture. The so-called nuclear option.

[Watcher]

Back on the Republican "Pledge to America", I noticed something interesting regarding preexisting conditions:

The emphasis there is mine, but it's crucial. Some people who have a preexisting condition might have lost prior coverage and would, under the Republican plan, be eligible for discrimination. And I'm not the only one to notice.

Essentially, I think Republicans are stuck here. They hate the ACA, but repealing it won't happen soon and even so would involve re-instituting some really unpopular practices like rescission and, naturally, discrimination based on preexisting conditions. Yet they can't abandon their rhetorical commitment to repeal without sending the Erick Ericksons of the party into orbit.

If insurance companies are forced to cover people with preexisting conditions and shrink the number the of healthy people insured, the cost for care will sky rocket for everyone that still has insurance. Like everything else in their "Pledge" this part will drive America deeper into debt and create worse problems we have now.

[TrackerNeil]

No, I'm referring to what some folks here argued should be done when they were trying to pass the bill -- simply change or suspend the rules regarding cloture. The so-called nuclear option.

Well, as I recall the nuclear option was ending filibusters for judicial nominees, but in all honesty I'm for eliminating the filibuster altogether. And I'll go you one further by saying that the Senate, which may once have been intended as a place of considered comity, is now just a stranglehold on government. Filibusters, secret holds, unanimous consent...all these have been used to simply frustrate one side or another for purely partisan gains. If the majority party is to be held responsible for running the government, that party should have the authority to actually run government. As it stands, the minority can and does use these rules to frustrate the majority, as little risk to themselves. It's analogous to a manager whose assistant has the power to veto anything he proposes. The manger will be fired if he screws up, and the assistant elevated to his place, meaning the assistant has every incentive to veto anything she can so she can rise to power. It's crazy.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

And I'll go you one further by saying that the Senate, which may once have been intended as a place of considered comity, is now just a stranglehold on government. Filibusters, secret holds, unanimous consent...all these have been used to simply frustrate one side or another for purely partisan gains.

As far as I can tell we've got more laws than we need anyway. The fewer bills past the Senate the better.

[Lord Mord]

TM,

Basically what that means is that mortgage co gave Joe a loan for $300,000.00, and the property loses value, and is now worth $200,000.00, the judge writes down the balance of the loan. Basically that spare $100,000.00 becomes a gift. This is a really lousy idea.

Why? Who loses?

[Lord Mord]

TN,

It's analogous to a manager whose assistant has the power to veto anything he proposes. The manger will be fired if he screws up, and the assistant elevated to his place, meaning the assistant has every incentive to veto anything she can so she can rise to power. It's crazy.

I see what you're saying, but the system is supposed to work like that, to prevent large parts of the population being left behind. It means that government falls to the least common denominators, but surely the stakes are too high to let any one government have a total run of things. Is there nothing the right proposes you think would be too much to endure in the interim till our next turn, if somehow obstructionism were impossible?