I woke up at 6.30am to hear a BBC presenter on the Today programme ponder “Was this the end of the Republican Party”? This related to their cave-in over the raising of the Debt ceiling, allowing Obama to spend another £1trillion or so that the US doesn’t have. Mark Mardell was then invited on so he could ruminate on the “stupid” strategy of the GOP and how hopefully now that Obama has taught them a lesson, they will not repeat the madness of ..erm…seeking to live within Budget. I have to admit how disappointed I am by the GOP’s roll-over but the BBC’s delight at this is quite nauseating, as is it’s WILFUL dismissal of the reason a “debt ceiling” exists in the first place.
OBAMA WIN, BBC EXULTANT
Bookmark the permalink.
Yes, let’s just pretend that this wasn’t a vocal, but highly funded and influential, portion of the Republican Party using government shutdown as an attempt to get the Affordable Care Act rescinded. Let’s paint the whole GOP as heroes instead as the fractious factions so busy in-fighting and lying to the public that their support in the polls has tanked to near-TUV levels.
Another instance of Biased BBC caring nothing for truth, and everything for their own fictions.
“Another instance of Biased BBC caring nothing for truth, and everything for their own fictions.”
For once, I agree with your conclusions.
“28% of those in a Gallup survey last week said they had a favorable opinion of the Republican party, down 10 points from a month earlier, and an all-time low in nearly 75 years of Gallup polling.”
Oh come on, Scott, 28% is a figure that TUV could only have dreamed of.
So only 28% of Americans have a brain then? that’s not something to celebrate.
The Republican polling ratings compare with Obama’s all time low 37% approval rating, which shows the American public appear to be sick of all establishment politicians. Come to think of it, have the BBC reported Obama’s all time low approval ratings?
The article was detailing the tone of the BBC’s stance, which gives massive amounts of time for pro-Obama commentators and virtually none to pro-Republican ones. Those they do include they shoot down within seconds.
I don’t like the Republicans either but you should be able to see bias when it’s as blatant as this. Sadly you’d rather play the appeal to the majority fallacy and make idiotic comparisons to a fringe party in Northern Ireland.
The imbalance in time given to each side is a standard BBC trick – also the treatment given to their opinions
When the fools paradise that is socialism, compounded by the mental policy of QE drags the US into ruin, then I’m sure they will look back and cry at their lack of “public” support.
Last time I checked, there was barely any economic growth, and what little there is, is created by government spending.
Even to a half wit, this situation is unsustainable and foolish.
But then, socialist never worry about wealth creation; to them wealth just “exists” or was “stolen” from ethnic minorities as it if is a pile of treasure.
Or rather more amusingly
Yep. Pretty much covers it. Obama represent those who believe the USA should be punished, just like Milliband, Blair, Cameron etc represent those who believe England should be punished.
It was about much more than ObamaCare, Scott. Get your head out. The Republicans used ObamaCare as one political tool, sure, but so did the President and the Democrats. In fact you’re telling a lie even now, aren’t you? The Republicans weren’t trying to get ObamaCare rescinded, full stop (Not that they don’t want to ultimately, of course). The President has already postponed the mandate for businesses for a year, but refused to postpone the individual mandate in order to end the shutdown. That’s postponing the individual mandate, not rescinding the entire thing. Another effort by the Republicans offered to temporarily increase the debt ceiling if the President compromised on ending the medical device tax bit of ObamaCare. That’s not rescinding the law entirely, merely repealing one miniscule element. The President refused, instead choosing to hold the country hostage for the sake of a tax that will ultimately harm the poorest and most vulnerable. That’s also the truth, something you can’t accept, and instead have apparently chosen to lie about it. Perhaps you’re simply misinformed.
The ObamaCare website was up and running during the shutdown, while the Administration spent money to barricade various places which normally had none, yet the BBC claimed it was only the Republicans engaging in theatrics. That’s also the truth, not opinion, and neither you nor the BBC care for it.
Highly-funded? What on earth does that mean? If you’ve got your tin-foil hat on and are fretting over the evil Koch Bros., no amount of money they’ve spent on various things can match the funding and power and influence of CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the federal government. In fact, the President’s personal activist group, Organizing for Action, made a weak little protest against the Tea Party movement the other day (not under His direct order, obviously, but there’s no denying this is His group). But you care nothing for certain truths, and everything for your own hyper-partisan fictions.
Fractious? The President’s mouthpieces and the Democrats and their heralds in the mainstream media have been calling Republicans terrorists and using all sorts of violent and polarizing rhetoric (yeah, it’s Breitbart, but you’ll need to refute the facts presented. Shooting the messenger, your usual tactic, won’t stand up to scrutiny here). Silence from the BBC, and you care nothing for this truth. The President also claimed He was open to negotiation on the health care law, but actually refused any and all compromises on it. That’s “compromises” mind, not rescinding the law entirely. Magically, He said essentially the same thing you have about this being all blamed on a tiny faction of the Republican Party.
Support tanking in the polls? The President’s approval rating has sunk as well. Most people now want to throw out the entire Congress, not just Republicans. But you care nothing for that truth, only for your own extreme partisan fictions.
Lying? The President has been lying about various aspects of ObamaCare for years, including lying about how the website will launch just fine. But you care nothing for that truth, only for your extremist fictions. The President has also lied about what the debt ceiling means. Even Moody’s says so. Yet you care nothing for that truth, and care only about your hate speech against your ideological opponents and people you hate.
You have the nerve to declare that we care nothing for the truth, yet you’ve remained resolutely silent about the BBC’s silence on the shutdown theatrics, and in fact once tried to claim that was a lie as well. Both sides did wrong here, and only hyper-partisan minds think only one side is at fault or did anything questionable. Both sides. Yet the BBC – and you – blame only one, not because of the facts, but because you support the other side.
PS: And we get the gratuitous personal insult from you, this time a snide reference to David Vance’s party.
I would imagine that Scott’s only news source is the BBC. Little wonder he doesn’t know that as soon as ‘the shutdown’ started, open air 24 hour a day public access, sites such as the WWII Memorial were suddenly barricaded (Barry-caded according to Vets) and seven security staff employed (two more than were allocated to Benghazi) to ensure that public access suddenly stopped. Now it has come out that the White House approved this.
Of course the Vets changed all that and just removed the barriers.
Beyond all that, the term ‘Affordable Care Act’ couldn’t be further from the truth.
People’s insurance premmiums going up by 225%.
60 year olds (of both sexes) being forced to sign up for maternity care which they clearly don’t need.
The young, many of whom will be on salaries of about $20,000, and on whose premiums the scheme is predicated to get the majority of its revenue will simply opt to take the $90 per annum fine for not registering, rather than pay anywhere between $1,200 & $2,000 for their premiums.
Oh, and small business either laying off staff or putting them on part time labour because they can’ afford to prop it up.
It will all end in tears, not that you’d know it if you only relied on the BBC or grolliard for news.
For can’ read can’t
That brings us to the actual goal of the President and His far-Left supporters, TPO: destroying the entire health insurance industry so they can enact universal healthcare funded by the taxpayer. If the young don’t join and overpay in record numbers, the whole thing falls apart because there’s no money to subsidize the other policies. Basic math tells us this cannot work. That was always the true goal, and we know that nationalized health care is something the BBC supports at all costs. Amusingly – or cunningly – the ObamaCare website fiasco is for the time being preventing enough people from signing up, thus enabling the catastrophe. Incompetence or cunning? You decide.
with the left the ends always justify the means. That’s why socalism has been responsible for the deaths of so many
Bless. Preiser spends so many paragraphs repeating the talking points he’s been fed, pretending that he knows what he’s talking about.
Oh no! Sites funded by federal money are closed when the federal government is shut down! There are barriers in place! How dreadful! It’s almost as if the national parks agency didn’t publish their contingency plan in advance. Or that barriers aren’t usual (and very cheap) pieces of equipment to have in place. Not to mention all the attendants who, although their salaries were furloughed, turned up to help supervise when crowds of “protestors” turned up, completely coincidentally whipped up into fervour by the likes of Cruz and half-term (but not a quitter) governor Sarah Palin.
Let’s just pretend for a minute that Preiser isn’t a dull little man, regurgitating whatever Fox News and other “fair and balanced” sources have regurgitated in front of him. Let’s have a think about how much a few barriers cost, and how long it takes to put them in place. This will involve pretending for a second that Preiser spends time away from his computer, where his collection of Palin photos rotate on that wipe-clean screen of his.
Yes, the launch of the federal ACA site has been really badly handled – something that the Cruz-orchestrated shutdown of the government has helped detract attention away from. Funny, though, that Preiser neglects to mention that the whole ACA system was modelled on a Republican-originated system.
Or that, when Sean Hannity brought three couples onto his Fox show to bemoan the evils of Obamacare, the truth turned out to be quite different.
Or that Rep. Marlin Stutzman revealed a little too much when he said, “We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”
Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has been hugely critical of Cruz’s tactics, which were purely Obamacare-based. But you won’t hear any of this from Preiser. Probably because Fox News will brook no argument from the idiots like him who just repeat what they’re told like trained, but very stupid, monkeys.
Preiser lives in a fantasy world. Which is the only sort of world where he knows what he’s talking about. A world he can only maintain by hiding out on a British blog populated by idiots who know even less about US politics than he does. A blog that tolerates his lies and arrogance because it perpetuates their own bigotry.
Just a minute, Scott! Isn’t the deal just approved very similar to two previous plans put forward by House Republicans which Obama dismissed completely? You should read a few more American news sites to get the complete picture and not just the Guardian site, Huffington Post, BBC, Independent etc.
Wow 15 likes for Scott’s rant. Any of you brave enough to back it up? Lurking or non-lurking journalists, perhaps?
Bearing in mind the number of Borg cycles he’s gone through to remain as banned as he claims, there may be a few you can put down to his server farm, too.
But still a fair few Secret Santas in cubicle land for sure.
Noticing Roland D’s rather pertinent follow up question has not teased the better informed, or shy ones out to clarify the detail.
Maybe they’re more ‘big picture’ guys?
Yup. the BBC was just as deaf to the voices who were pointing out the unsustainability of the UK debt growth between around 1999 (when Labour abandoned the perfectly sensible fiscal policy that had been developed by the previous Conservative government, and which had served the country very well indeed for the first 2 years of Gordon Brown’s Chancellorship) and 2008 when, having thrown money around like confetti, Mr Brown’s infamous ‘No more boom and bust’ claim finally came back and bit him, and unfortunately, the country, in the backside – big time.
Mr Brown, of course, tried to blame all the problems on everybody else. Mr Obama is trying to fudge the issue in the US by politicking against his opponents like there was no tomorrow, which is precisely how he’s dealing with US government debt today – i.e. spending like there’s no tomorrow.
The big message is – someone will have to pay at some point… and you can bet that Mr Barack Obama, Mr Harry Reid, Ms Nancy Pelosi, et al, will have conveniently disappeared from the scene, suitably insulated against any of the effects of the problems they will have created.
Funnily enough, we haven’t seen a whole lot of Mr Brown since 2010 either…
And you won’t be seeing much of Mr. Brown any time in the near future, either, as he’s currently striding the globe like a colossus as the UN Special Demander of Wealth Redistribution for Children’s Education.
Why do bank robbers rob banks?
Coz that’s where the money is ?
Genuine question. I have heard it continually reported on the BBC that it would have meant the US was unable to borrow and would default on its debts. My understanding, and I think David Preiser confirmed this recently, is that the US could not have increased its borrowing.
Surely there was no reason to default? It would mean it could not borrow further to pay the interest on existing debts but would instead have to prioritise expenditure and indeed could continue to borrow so long as any new loans were matched by paying off old ones. Have I misunderstood? Or is there wilful misreporting and scaremongering from the BBC?
My understanding is that it was the ‘debt ceiling’ which was raised. That does not necessarily mean that the US had actually borrowed all it could have, nor, as you rightly point out, that it has no other options than to lift the debt ceiling. The claim that the country would immediately default on its debts was little more than a scare tactic based on a false premise.
Always fascinating to look at the USA Debt Clock.
Thanks for that. If I read it right, then the ceiling of £16.9 trillion has indeed already been reached.
I would agree. I had assumed in my post that the ceiling had already been reached but, of course, it may not have been. Which would make immediate default even less relevant.
According to the US Treasury the past 12 months has seen $415,688,781,248.40 paid this year just to SERVICE the existing debt.
That is 14% of every tax dollar.
or $600 per month per US citizen
by 2020 the interest payment will be $1 trillion annually.
how much longer can this go on ??
to answer your question the default would be caused by USA being unable to continue to pay the debt as they ( on the current budget they are operating in) need to borrow to pay the debt.
Presumably when an interest payment was due it could not have been made as that in itself would increase the debt – once defaulted there may have been a problem – however the whole world would know that it was a technical matter rather than some underlying change in the US abilility (or rather inability) to really service its debt
That assumes there was no other spending equivalent to the interest which could be cut instead. Or that the government chose not to cut other spending.
Looks as though your assumption was right initially, Roland. Althoughthe Telegraph suggests the the US treasury has $30 bn of emergency funds for these sorts of situations which could have been used, and it wouldn’t have been till the end of the month, when a combined bill for $6 billion in debt repayments and interest payments is due, when the real deadline was reached.
However, as we have both said, it looks as though perhaps no thought has been given to reducing spending over the past few months (since the last debt crisis) so that borrowing did not need to increase.
What is really scary about the chart presented by arthur penney…… jeez, debt per taxpayer…. $148,000, with $260bn in net interest on that debt alone.
And that’s not even looking at the numbers associated with the Total US debt.
No – making an interest payment out of revenues does NOT increase the debt.
If your credit card shows £2k of debt, if you make your monthly interest payment out of your current account the debt level stays the same. No increase. With a credit card you may CHOOSE not to pay the interest out of your current account – this WOULD increase the debt level. But in the US the Administration if forced by the 14th Amendment to pay the interest out of its revenues.
The 14th Amendment isn’t about forcing the government to pay its debts. The bit about debt was intended to make sure the country didn’t have to reimburse former Confederate States for losses they incurred in rebelling, or for property lost, i.e. slave. Some have tried to make the case that Section 4 give the President super powers to do whatever, but not even the current President – usually quite willing to expand His powers, legally or extra-legally – thinks it does. And that was His area of expertise when He was a law lecturer in Chicago.
Of course, there was a time when He thought having to raise the debt ceiling was a sign of leadership failure, but, as the saying goes, it was a different time…..
The BBC, and the US mainstream media too, have been dissembling furiously on this issue.
The debt ceiling does not prevent paying interest on existing debt obligations – it prevents incurring new debts. Ongoing ‘revenues’ (i.e. tax receipts) continue even when the debt ceiling is hit, and the question becomes, how will these revenues be used? The US Constitution is quite clear on this topic: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 states that Congress shall have the power… to pay the debts [of the US].
Therefore, even when the debt ceiling is hit, Congress can continue to pay debt interest from ongoing revenues, and they are specifically empowered to do so under the Constitution. If the president or other branches of government tried to refuse this power, they would be liable to impeachment, as their actions would be unconstitutional. I.e. Obama could not ‘shutdown’ interest payments as its not his right under the constitution to decide on what items Congress chooses to pay.
Whilst there may be various discussions about exactly what payments Congress can authorise (e.g. what exactly does ‘provide for the general welfare of the US’ mean), the power to pay debts is explicit.
The debt ceiling is a hard stop on deficit spending; ongoing expenses have to be prioritised, and once the ongoing revenues are used up, no further payments for other programmes can be made. This is what strikes terror into the heart of the Democrats, the non-Tea Party Republicans, and the BBC – it is an enforced restriction that demands that the government lives within its means.
One additional point often thrown around is the idea that government spending is so complex that its simply not possible to prioritise debt payments without going over the debt ceiling. This might make sense if debt payments were 50%+ of the daily revenues say, but in reality debt payments are less than 10% of revenues. Its fairly evident that the ‘debt default’ crisis was a manufactured lie, a collusion between Democrats, non-Tea Party Republicans, and the US media, in order that government spending profligacy could continue.
You are exactly right. The Administration would not have been able to raise NEW EXTRA debt. But it had ample funds to pay interest on existing debt (debt interest equals about 10% of Federal revenues) and under the 14th Amendment these payments have first call on revenues. Avoiding such payments is an impeachable offence.
If any of the EXISTING debt matured – it could be rolled over in the usual way – eg $100 billion of Treasury bills mature tomorrow, $1 billion of new bills can be raised to make the repayment, no increase in aggregate debt.
The kick-the-can-down the kerb deal merely raises the limit enough for an estimated 3 months of extra debt.
The whole point of the issue is – how much debt can and should the US be loading on future generations.
The House of Representatives has to approve increases in the debt ceiling. Of course they will use this as leverage.
The Today programme was indeed exultant – Evan Davis even more than Mark Mardell. Which is doubly bad – Davis is meant to be an economist, not a political hack.
And why the hell did we need to fly Davis over there ?
Dead right!
Why did we pay for Davis to swan over to Washington, given that Mardell more than does the BBCs bidding for them.
Athens…Washington…anybody keeping tabs on the Toady “airmiles” amassed , for the sole satisfaction of houseboys, vinedressers or cute Latvians?
I gather there`s a few US reporters over there who could fill us in more cheaply…I resent paying for Evans Brasso bill!
As usual posters here can provide the explanations that the £3 billion BBC cannot. Thanks to all.
Correct on all counts, Roland. The BBC was simply repeating the falsehoods from the White House. They probably believed them with all their hearts, so I can’t say for certain that BBC journalists were actually lying.
Are Congress/Senate types-Democrats like POTUS included going to avail themselves of this wondrous Obamacare…or not?
Do tell us Scott etal?
Or is this simply an excuse to attach a legacy name to something crap and for the ages…like the Baker Days that are used to brainwash teachers into striking and doling out condoms.
They`ll not be reading this today though-getting a bit of exercise before a good old birth in the real ale pub.
The Original Baker Boys n Bags…Ken and Hilda!…and look at what we now have in our “stewdunt chillzones”!
Cue Scott!
Congressmen and their staffs are essentially exempt from ObamaCare. They did not read the Bill when it was being enacted – but they knew damn well it meant no good so they evade its tentacles.
“One law for us, one law for the plebs”
Lots of ‘exemptions’ for organisations, like politicians, unions, certain businesses, etc. were granted by Obama and his mates.
Amazingly, when investigated further, so many of these organisations were natural (if not outright declared) Obama supporters…..
And I still cannot believe that the US public stand behind the likes of Nacy Pelosi and her cohorts who, when presented with the question – ‘what’s in this massive tome outlining Obamacare, that you’re asking us to vote on..?’ – reponded with the incredible statement that people in government would have to vote for it before they got to read it ….
You cannot imagine what will happen if a future republican government tries the very same approach with, oh, say, a welfare reform bill.
The President has already granted exemptions to His political cronies: unions, plus a bunch of major companies with a lot of low-wage employees, such as McDonald’s (some of which are temporary, for now).
Confused…
A lot of gloating from the BBC and Guardian (“Republicans in Turmoil”).
On the one hand liberals proclaim to be the most democratic (“We can all have all the cake and all of us eat it.”) and yet they want Republicans in the US and Conservatives in the UK out of government in perpetuity.
That and they suck up to Islamo-Nazis 24/7. Who will, of course, bite the hand that feeds it as soon as they have the strength to do so.
I don’t like the way the BBC keep saying the US would have defaulted if a deal had not been reached. That’s a lie and they know it. See here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/10/15/failure-to-raise-the-debt-ceiling-will-not-bring-about-federal-default/
Precisely what I was getting at above. But I’m sure Scott or CTC can show me how I’m wrong and the BBC is right.
Me too.
But by definition a cherry-picking drive-by suggests such clarification is not needed once they secure the No 1 & 2 slot in comment on a small blog no one reads, cares about, but some oddly vultures hold station over to monitor 24/7.
At least, to meet quota.
The credit agency Moody’s said last week that there was no risk of default on US debt. The BBC failed to report that.
But when the credit agency Finch said this week there was a possibility of a downgrade in US credit status from Triple-A – headlines all over the BBC. The implication on the BBC was that debt defaults were possible. That is NOT what Fitch were saying – they were criticising the continual financial impasses between the President and Congress.
And it has been suggested that Fitch were under pressure to add to the false panic – Standard and Poors are already being sued for billions by the Administration for their failures of oversight of the US housing credit market.
I emailed the Today programme about the falsity of their coverage of the debt question – yes, I know its a waste of time, I have never done it before – but they carry on with their lies and hyperbole. CUTZ is bad, so debt limits are bad. And Obama can be allowed to drive the US economy further on to the rocks.
Well yes – all they have done is kicked the ball a few yards down the mud-track and it has got a bit more mud stuck on it, making it heavier and harder to kick the next time.
Actually, arthur, that’s no longer true. The new deal actually cements an automatic kicking of the can into law. Next time it will require a veto-proof majority of Congress to reject an increase, or it will happen automatically. The power of one branch of government has been reduced in deference to the demands of another branch. I don’t know if this violates the Constitution, but I’m sure somebody will find a way to challenge it at some point.
This is thanks at least in part to a nice fat barrel of pork given to the leader of Senate Republicans. And people wonder why the Tea Party movement wants to get rid of the Republican establishment. It’s not because of racism.
The BBC will never report it that way, because they don’t actually understand how US government works very well, have a piss-poor grasp of US history, and in the end believe that it would be wrong to put a limit on borrowing anyway.
This is a clear violation of the Constitution; it empowers Senate and the President at the expense of Congress.
The US does not have a two-party system anymore, and it hasn’t in a long time. If there is any silver lining to the recent debacle, its that the one-party nature of US politics has become transparent.
I have nothing but praise for the founding fathers’ vision for America, but I’m sorry to say that the US today has devolved into becoming a de-facto communist country. What has just happened is truly no surprise to anyone with the eyes to see whats really been going on in american politics for the last 80-100 years.
The only question is when the producers in america will finally wake up to reality; at that point, and when they finally withdraw their efforts, what remains will implode as the tax-eaters feast on ever-decreasing leftovers.
The BBC and their marxist brethren at that point can take full satisfaction in having created yet another hell on earth.
I believe that most US government debt issued in the last few years has actually been “bought” by the Federal Reserve, which magics money out of thin air to pay for it. The house of cards is bound to collapse sooner or later, I assume the Democrats hope it will not happen until there is a Republican president they can blame it on. The Republicans in Congress are useless, they always blink first and Barry gives them nothing. He treats them with the contempt they deserve.
One could make the argument (and Bill O’Reilly did) that Obama, seeing his job approval rating sink as a result of the Syria mess some weeks ago, thought he’d bring those levels up with his handling of the budget and debt-ceiling issues– “This time, I won’t back down!”
The only trouble with Mr Obama’s calculus is that it was wrong– his approval ratings continued to stay low; not nearly so low as Congress in general and the Repubs in particular, but then again, they weren’t held in all that high an esteem going into this whole fiasco.
The failure of the rollout of Obamacare enrolment has been overshadowed by the “Shutdown Theatre,” and it has been cynically suggested in some circles that the Administration, knowing this would be the case, did not want to make a deal ahead of the rollout, to where the failures of the Administration’s crown jewel programme would occupy centre stage, just as the Administration was all set to attempt to get an immigration “reform” bill done; “Shutdown Theatre” was, therefore, “Look! A Squirrel!”– just as Obama’s pronouncements that, now on to immigration, are also a diversion, as the racial implications of such an issue will occupy all the limited brainage of the media types in DC (*cough*”Mardell”*cough*)– “The Repubs have a hard time in the growing Latino community, and they don’t want to be seen, on the heels of this ‘loss’ to Obama on the shutdown, as taking their anger towards Obama out on the Latinos, further marginalising themselves and their future electoral chances, blah blah blah…” Another “squirrel.”
One might wonder how many Joe Louis-type “Bums-Of-The-Month” can Obama face and defeat in the ring without it taking its toll on him, as it did Louis. All the “Bums” have to do is show up, to cash a neat pay cheque, and land a blow or two– the Champ can’t afford to look (or BE) a bit “off” whilst defeating them; and enough blows landed by the “Bums” will be cumulative in their effect, if the Champ, as with Obamacare and Syria, can’t duck all of them.
even barack hussein obamas most loyal supporters are turning there back on him now in there droves,they always said could you get a worst president than george w bush,i think they have with obama who is just a total failure in his second term,and do you know what,i dont think he cares any more.
Cares? Oh he cares all right, he cares about how much more damage he can inflict on the USA before his second 4 year spell comes to an end.
Oh dear, oh dear.
Thee years & $680 million later and the obamacare registration website is now on the verge of collapsing.
People cannot register, and those few who have managed it are now finding that their medical information is not secure.
IT experts now being interviewed on TV here saying that there will be no fix before February next year and that the problems appear insurmountable. After February people will be fined for not registering.
I said earlier that it would all end in tears. Looks like its coming earlier than I thought. But then again if you are like Scott above and relied solely on the BBC for your news, you wouldn’t have the first idea about what is unfolding.
But wanting to postpone it is racist.
It is not all doom and gloom. Republicans still lead the Democrats in opinion polls. All the arguments over the debt limit mean that there will be nothing happening on comprehensive immigration reform – which Obama wanted. And nothing on his other pet ideas like climate change.
The whole issue will start again in a few short weeks. By then the flaws in ObamaCare will be even morre apparent – nit just the website, but the switching of workers from full-time work to under 30 hours, many insured people findoing their premiums have shot up, many finding they can no longer get private insurance.
And the sequester continues – the enforcing on Obama and the Democrats of 10% spending cuts. Obama wanted this finished – he hates it – but it looks to be here to stay.
Of course the media – including the BBC – want to present this as a disaster for the Republicans. But it is not all bad. And the raising of the debt limit is merely a stop-gap.
Mark Mardell and Evan Davis will of course be explaining all this to us tomorrow morning.
Radio 4 this week tried a demolition job on the Tory plans for Universal Credit – including problems with the computer system. No chance of all that being overlooked. So we should be especially grateful to the BBC for matching this expose with its full and frank reporting on the ObamaCare train-wreck.