Thoughts on US Government Shutdown | INFJ Forum

Thoughts on US Government Shutdown

YourFavoriteNightmare

YourFavoriteNightmare

Community Member
Sep 11, 2013
143
14
0
MBTI
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Well, semi-surprised that nothing has shown up here on the USA Government Shutdown. No, the United States aren't going to dissolve (in case you didn't know and I know there's plenty of nations represented here on INFJf). But the funding from the government outward has been stopped. It will continue as long as they can't agree on a national budget, a big component being ObamaCare.
 
Technically the government is running right now. Because the Republican Party agreed to kick the can down the road to Jan 15/Feb 7 instead of continue to make public opinion of them drop through the floor.
 
Last edited:
I think the can has been kicked to January now.

o-RACHEL-MADDOW-570.jpg
 
I think people were also probably not posting about it because they knew it would attract idiots who have no idea what they're talking about.
 
YourFavoriteNightmare said:
I do know that you will be fined if you don't have Health care beginning in Jan 2014.
Click to expand...

This pissed me off extremely until I found out the fine is only like $125 a year.

Imo, cut out the damn middle man and selective taxing and just raise taxes in general while opening up medicare and medicade to the public as the default public option. You can't give people free healthcare by forcing them to buy healthcare.
 
Colt said:
This pissed me off extremely until I found out the fine is only like $125 a year.

Imo, cut out the damn middle man and selective taxing and just raise taxes in general while opening up medicare and medicade to the public as the default public option. You can't give people free healthcare by forcing them to buy healthcare.
Click to expand...

Read on this a little bit. One article stated "It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions."
The neutrality of the article is questionable though. (here's the link http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...snt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/)

Somewhere else I read (*sigh* reading things on the internet, wise one, Einstein) that the fine is 1% of your income, which...I don't see how that's a threat. I mean, yeah, that's 500 green out of your pocket if you have a $50,000 job. But nothing too extreme. Can you verify the $125 fine?
 
Last edited:
YourFavoriteNightmare said:
Somewhere else I read (*sigh* reading things on the internet, wise one, Einstein) that the fine is 1% of your income, which...I don't see how that's a threat. I mean, yeah, that's 5,000 green out of your pocket if you have a $50,000 job. But nothing too extreme. Can you verify the $125 fine?
Click to expand...

1% of $50,000 is $500, genius.

(sorry, couldn't resist--forgive me)
 
YourFavoriteNightmare said:
Read on this a little bit. One article stated "It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions."
The neutrality of the article is questionable though. (here's the link http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...snt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/)

Somewhere else I read (*sigh* reading things on the internet, wise one, Einstein) that the fine is 1% of your income, which...I don't see how that's a threat. I mean, yeah, that's 5,000 green out of your pocket if you have a $50,000 job. But nothing too extreme. Can you verify the $125 fine?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where I read that so I'm not positive about it. All indications point to the heaviest fines being placed on employers with over a certain number of employees. Looking for some more stuff about it now.

Edit:

This came from CNN

"For 2014, the flat fee is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, up to $285 per family. Or the penalty could be 1% of family income, if that results in a larger fine. (Income is defined as total income above the filing threshold, which is $10,000 for an individual and $20,000 for a family in 2013.)"
 
YourFavoriteNightmare said:
I do know that you will be fined if you don't have Health care beginning in Jan 2014.
Click to expand...

I believe the intent behind it was to make it financially infeasible to not have a plan (especially when they will be federally subsidized for the severely impoverished), though one could just as easily say that it's a spiteful punishment of those who choose not to pay out money to healthcare providers. In a vacuum, you could really interpret it either way, and nobody really addresses it within context anyway.
 
SealHammer said:
I believe the intent behind it was to make it financially infeasible to not have a plan (especially when they will be federally subsidized for the severely impoverished), though one could just as easily say that it's a spiteful punishment of those who choose not to pay out money to healthcare providers. In a vacuum, you could really interpret it either way, and nobody really addresses it within context anyway.
Click to expand...

Personally, I feel that when you start fining people for breathing air I have to question what "land of the free" means.
 
Colt said:
I'm not sure where I read that so I'm not positive about it. All indications point to the heaviest fines being placed on employers with over a certain number of employees. Looking for some more stuff about it now.
Click to expand...

The gist of the Senate bill (shamelessly stolen from WashPo):
Does not require employers to offer health insurance. However, if even one employee receives a subsidy through the new exchanges, firms with more than 50 employees would have to pay a fine equal to $750 for every person on their payroll.
Click to expand...
 
Shutdown shows in a way that the government is not entirely corrupt and stupid, and some politicians are at least trying. And even then there isn't an actual shutdown, funding has been extended.

The fact that there's a shutdown or risk of one implies that at least somebody is not willing to lay down and be rolled over. It means that at least somebody is trying to uphold what they think is right for the people.

In fairness, your pet party or favorite legislation cannot simply bowl down all who oppose it, because this violates the principle that the opposing party can't do the same to you. This means they are NOT going to just give in to get things over with, and they are NOT going to play dead for unacceptable terms. They will hold out for either agreement or compromise, because that is their job.

If you don't like Obamacare, you should be thankful that things are halted because it means somebody in there is fighting for you. If you do like it, it means the same.
 
If I were at my borrowing's end, does this mean I can now borrow more money like the government does that they don't have? In the meantime, can they sell my property at auction if I don't pay the taxes on time? Can they now take more money from Social Security benefits to pay their other endeavors? I'd need a drink to continue. We have been sheared like sheep. Lied to like elephants. Stolen from at the stock market. Our country has been ruined.
 
Last edited:
It's kind of bizarre to try to avoid the problems of default and debt by causing default and incredible expense. Introduce an amendment to allow us to dissolve the house for new elections and half of our self-inflicted problems go away. It's kind of ironic that these same people usually blather on and on about about subsidizing the economy and then pitch a fit and threaten to ruin it (cutting off the nose to spite the face?). If our companies really can't afford the healthcare, while the rest of the modern world can, then there's something even more wrong. Yet, it seems to me to be like how requiring manufacturers to install seat-belts/airbags, cut CFC's, or increase fuel efficiency would lead to the ruin of many companies. Terrible, horrible, awful stuff.

I'd rather be forced by the gov. to get health insurance than car insurance. For now, I stand to benefit from Obamacare, and if it means that I'll be healthy now and help somebody else in need later, that's fine by me.

And, the law is trying to cut the fat off medicare... people with insurance are already paying for those w/o when they get their multi-million dollar operations to save their lives that they'll never pay back and spend the rest of their lives in financial ruin, w/o health insurance and unable even to work to pay fractions of it off... So, if people were really concerned that much about paying for other people's health, let the hospitals throw people on the curb... some might even agree with that.
 
Last edited:
sprinkles said:
Shutdown shows in a way that the government is not entirely corrupt and stupid, and some politicians are at least trying. And even then there isn't an actual shutdown, funding has been extended.

The fact that there's a shutdown or risk of one implies that at least somebody is not willing to lay down and be rolled over. It means that at least somebody is trying to uphold what they think is right for the people.

In fairness, your pet party or favorite legislation cannot simply bowl down all who oppose it, because this violates the principle that the opposing party can't do the same to you. This means they are NOT going to just give in to get things over with, and they are NOT going to play dead for unacceptable terms. They will hold out for either agreement or compromise, because that is their job.

If you don't like Obamacare, you should be thankful that things are halted because it means somebody in there is fighting for you. If you do like it, it means the same.
Click to expand...

Or maybe there's a bunch of stubborn people who want to hold onto their "great" ideas or save face.
But, hey, a little faith in humanity works too.
 
YourFavoriteNightmare said:
Or maybe there's a bunch of stubborn people who want to hold onto their "great" ideas or save face.
But, hey, a little faith in humanity works too.
Click to expand...

I need the latter because if I don't have it, the world can die for all I care. In fact, if I don't have faith in humanity, I'd kill them all myself given the chance.

I've been misanthropic enough. I played it out and grew tired of the misery.
 
sprinkles said:
I need the latter because if I don't have it, the world can die for all I care. In fact, if I don't have faith in humanity, I'd kill them all myself given the chance.

I've been misanthropic enough. I played it out and grew tired of the misery.
Click to expand...

Same here. But I just don't hate anymore. Now, I just don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back