Yosemite National Park, closed for the GOP government shutdown. I'm sure Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, two Republicans who played key roles in the park's protection, would be proud.
Reshared post from +Google
Today in the U.S., our doodle marks the establishment 123 years ago of Yosemite National Park. About the size of Rhode Island (3,081 square kilometers), Yosemite is known worldwide for its striking granite cliffs, waterfalls, redwood groves and other natural wonders; John Muir, who was instrumental in its preservation, called it "by far the grandest of all the special temples of Nature I was ever permitted to enter." In the wake of this year's devastating California's Rim Fire, our doodle celebrates Yosemite's past and future.
92 view(s)
"GOP Shutdown?"
Well, yes. The shutdown of government forced by the House GOP Majority demanding stuff they couldn't get passed through legislation or get a president elected on, as a condition for a Continuing Resolution to keep the government going. As this was an intentional and long-planned act (see http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/09/house-gops-legislative-strike.html), I'd call it a GOP government shutdown.
So, the Senate….who rejected House measures no less than four times, had nothing to do with it.
Right.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/10/01/the-story-behind-the-government-shutdown/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
This would be the Senate that' asked the House over a dozen times this year to negotiate on a budget bill — and were blocked by the Senate GOP or rebuffed by the House GOP.
Until, at the eleventh hour, having continued to put forward an absolutist bill as a precondition to keeping the government running, all of a sudden the House offered to negotiate and find "middle ground" between what is already current law and what they were demanding … with the government's operation being at stake.
No, I'm pretty much thinking it's not the Senate's fault.
Heritage.org? That's the source you cite? A foundation whose mission statement is a commitment to promoting conservative policies? Yeah, totally unbiased. Very helpful.
"Government funding isn’t the issue. It’s Obamacare." And you would have us think that isn't the GOP's stance? To quote from a movie, "Your bogus ingenuousness is straining my equanimity."
+Scott Randel Facts are facts….even if they don't come from "Think Progress".
Think what you will and let me know how the Obamacare kool-aid tastes in a few years.
Except that Heritage piece is little more than opinion, not facts, to the effect of "Life goes on, the government shutdown isn't hurting anyone, defund that icky Obamacare." Which is pretty much what I'd expect Heritage (who's supported the whole "shut it down" strategy from day 1) to say.
I see plenty of facts there, but I know…I know….. Democrat=good…Republican=bad.
I'll just go back to my mansion, roll around in my millions, and cackle at all the 'little people' who can't afford health care.
You mean "facts" like the ACA is "an unworkable law"? That it "raised individuals’ health care premiums" before it even went into effect? That it is the ACA that "cut workers’ hours" rather than the employers (If offering insurance to employees is such an unbearable burden, how do companies manage to insure millions of employees already?)? That it "forced many Americans off their existing health coverage" when the case being cited is a company's decision to drop spouses of employees if those spouses work for a company that offers insurance (How can they blame that on "Obamacare"? Do they just assume that people won't read the cited article?)?
And really, "Democrat=good…Republican=bad."? I suppose you don't think your posts show that you believe that Republican = good and Democrat = bad? With rhetoric like "Obamacare kool-aid" in your post? When have you ever been less biased than Fox News?
+Scott Randel Yes, yes….of course millions of Americans are just making up stories to give Obamacare a bad rap. Truth is, if you did some research, you'd see it too.
Your response tells me all I need to know in continuing this discussion, so good luck out there.
when the case being cited is a company's decision to drop spouses of employees if those spouses work for a company that offers insurance
Which is not a class of phenomenon limited to the ACA. Most insurance firms ask you to reveal any other coverage that you may have in order to blend payouts, limiting their own exposure.
Employers (and the insurance firms working through them) have been cutting back spousal benefits (either eliminating their coverage or making adding spouses a significant extra cost) for years.
That it is the ACA that "cut workers’ hours" rather than the employers
While there seem to be plenty of companies, anecdotally, using that excuse, it's not backed up by analysis of employment trends (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/aca-job-killer-2013-07.pdf), especially given pre-existing trends in companies shifting to part-time labor (http://www.ebri.org/publications/notes/index.cfm?fa=notesDisp&content_id=5212) (which also notes that such employers were also already reducing heath care coverage). (In fact, the availability of the exchanges and subsidies for insurance for lower-income Americans means that even in individual cases where coverage is cut or hours reduced or jobs eliminated, insurance is still available.
If there are "millions of Americans" telling these stories, I'd like to see some indication of it (and that what they are telling is in fact accurate and not what they are being fed by their employer as an excuse).
Re Heritage: it's worth noting they are key cheerleaders / enforcers for the GOP re using the debt limit to coerce the Senate and White House. http://heritageaction.com/2013/05/open-letter-to-congress-the-promise-of-the-williamsburg-accord/
Of course, that was about "balancing the budget" vs "defunding Obamacare" specifically, but as a tactic they consider it reasonable and essential.