# How is "shutting down the government" a winning strategy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 18, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152 "2013-09-18T16:40:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/161 "2013-09-23T04:16:10Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > It puts blue state Republicans in the same dilemma. In the [House vote today](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57603877/house-passes-bill-funding-government-defunding-obamacare/), two Democrats voted for the bill, and one Republican voted against it. Pretty much a wash. > > Or were you talking about some other Democrats? He’s gonna spin it as “100% more Democrats support defunding Obamacare than Republicans who support keeping it!” > [@adaher](#): > > It’s okay in this case because of the history of the ACA and the fact that Democrats continue to defy the will of the public. The public doesn’t know what it wants if it bit them in the ass. I support going against their will for their own good. > [@adaher](#): > > What happens when employees who like their insurance get dumped onto the exchanges, or worse, Medicaid? They’ll bitch and complain while paying less and getting more coverage? > [@adaher](#): > > The weakness of the law is that it creates losers and winners. Whether there will be more winners than losers depends on how well the Obama team implements the law. Which right now should not inspire much confidence. As opposed to the old way where it only created losers except for the very rich > [@adaher](#): > > You liberals are fighting the last war, thinking that an entitlement will always be successful because people get benefits, and we all know robbing Peter to pay Paul insures Paul’s support. It would be bad except the health care laws are at least 6 decades out of date. Its a compliment to be said we’re fighting the last war when the GOP wants to run the system like the 1920’s > [@adaher](#): > > Oh yeah, I forgot to mention seniors. What happens if those Medicare cuts do turn out to be real, and not merely “cuts in the rate of growth”? What happens if a lie turns out to be real? Oh please, let me answer that! It won’t because its a lie. The end. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/162 "2013-09-23T04:22:25Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The public doesn’t know what it wants if it bit them in the ass. I support going against their will for their own good. You can do that, but you take a chance when you do. Better hope the President implements this law well, because a train wreck can kill it. > [@](#): > > They’ll bitch and complain while paying less and getting more coverage? Employer subsidies tend to be a lot more generous than ACA subsidies. In my case, my insurance costs $700/month, with the company paying $500/month. It’s a platinum-equivalent plan. No way I can get the same coverage for $200/month on an exchange, even after the subsidy. I’d be a net loser, as would every single other employee in my company, if our insurance got dropped. For union workers, the difference would be even more stark. > [@](#): > > As opposed to the old way where it only created losers except for the very rich See, you misunderstand the political situation. 80% of Americans were satisfied with their health insurance, thus the need to promise up and down that people would be able to keep it. If that turns out not to be entirely true, the Democrats will get the mother of all spankings. They’ll wish they were the Republicans circa 2008. > [@](#): > > What happens if a lie turns out to be real? Oh please, let me answer that! It won’t because its a lie. The end. The $500 billion in Medicare savings is a fact. And if it was ANY other program it would be called a cut. As a matter of fact, it always was when Republicans tried to reduce the rate of growth, using exactly the same methods(cutting provider payments). The only question is whether beneficiaries will feel the cuts. If they do, game over. And BTW, I can’t help but notice that your argument indirectly admits Democratic duplicity. Supposedly there’s this $500 billion in free money in the Medicare program that was just waiting for Democrats to take it. Why did they bilk taxpayers for decades until they needed that money for another program? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/163 "2013-09-23T04:45:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The $500 billion in Medicare savings is a fact. And if it was ANY other program it would be called a cut. As a matter of fact, it always was when Republicans tried to reduce the rate of growth, using exactly the same methods(cutting provider payments). > > The only question is whether beneficiaries will feel the cuts. If they do, game over. > > And BTW, I can’t help but notice that your argument indirectly admits Democratic duplicity. Supposedly there’s this $500 billion in free money in the Medicare program that was just waiting for Democrats to take it. Why did they bilk taxpayers for decades until they needed that money for another program? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: First, there were already discussions that showed how silly is that point. Second, as pointed before, the majority will not feel the cuts. Third, Politifact, that site that you pointed recently at being very impartial and the standard to use to show if you were not wrong (did not work as you planned, but never mind) has called that point that the Republicans use a false one or mostly false: > **[Another look at a favorite Republican talking point](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/nov/14/rob-cornilles/another-look-favorite-republican-talking-point/)** > > Sometimes talking points are just so good that no matter how many times we point out they’re wrong, politicians keep usi > [@](#): > > Just how pervasive is this claim? Well, PolitiFact Oregon addressed it more than a year ago when Scott Bruun tried to use it against Rep. Kurt Schrader and called the claim Mostly False. > > But that’s not all: PolitiFact National gave Michele Bachmann a Mostly False in September for claiming Obama was stealing $500 billion from Medicare. In July, PolitiFact Texas gave a state representative a Mostly False for claiming $500 billion in Medicare cuts were coming. And PolitiFact Ohio served up an out-and-out False to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in June for claiming that Sen. Sherrod Brown had voted to cut $500 billion from Medicare. > > There are more, but you probably get the idea. > > Naturally, we were a little surprised, then, when Rob Cornilles, the Republican candidate for the open 1st congressional district seat, accused state Sen. Suzanne Bonamici, his Democratic opponent, of supporting a $500 billion cut. > > And yet, there it was, during a speech he delivered Wednesday: “Senator Bonamici says she supports the $500 billion cut to Medicare passed last year.” > > There’s a small bit of truth here. The Affordable Care Act does reduce Medicare spending by $500 billion over the next 10 years. But here’s the catch: Those dollars aren’t taken out of the current budget, they are not actual cuts, and nowhere does the bill actually eliminate any current benefits. > > The $500 billion is all in future spending reductions and come through the law’s attempts to slow projected growth, not cut spending. > > PolitiFact National has highlighted the biggest bits of savings: About $220 billion comes from reducing annual increases in Medicare payments to health care providers. Another $36 billion comes from increasing premiums for higher-income beneficiaries. Administrative changes land another $12 billion in savings. A new national board is set to come up with $15.5 billion in savings – but can’t get those savings from a reduction in benefits. The last big chunk of $136 billion comes in changes to the Medicare Advantage program, which has become more expensive than initially anticipated. > > Still, given all these changes, Medicare spending is expected to increase – something we pointed out in our fact check on Bruun a year ago. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009. > > As we said last year, while it’s true that the government is looking to reduce the growth of future spending, the Affordable Care Act does not eliminate $500 billion out of the current budget for Medicare. Most important, there are no cuts to guaranteed Medicare benefits. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/164 "2013-09-23T06:02:55Z")
**The $500 billion is all in future spending reductions and come through the law’s attempts to slow projected growth, not cut spending.** That’s what the sequester is, yet the sequester is called “savage budget cuts”. And again, if this was a free lunch, why did Democrats oppose Republicans’ attempts to slow the growth rate of Medicare? It’s apparent that Democrats don’t care about taxpayers at all. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/165 "2013-09-23T06:20:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > **The $500 billion is all in future spending reductions and come through the law’s attempts to slow projected growth, not cut spending.** > > That’s what the sequester is, yet the sequester is called “savage budget cuts”. > > And again, if this was a free lunch, why did Democrats oppose Republicans’ attempts to slow the growth rate of Medicare? It’s apparent that Democrats don’t care about taxpayers at all. Again, you were wrong, changing the goal post does not work to fix what you said. Not to mention that the “free lunch” bit here is a straw man. Meaning that the “apparent” is still a dubious thing to say. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/166 "2013-09-23T06:21:47Z")
Neither does changing the definition of what a “cut” is. Prior to the ACA, all attempts to reduce the growth of programs was called a “cut” by Democrats. It’s up to you to explain why the ACA version is different. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/167 "2013-09-23T06:27:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Neither does changing the definition of what a “cut” is. Prior to the ACA, all attempts to reduce the growth of programs was called a “cut” by Democrats. It’s up to you to explain why the ACA version is different. Politifact, the source that you rely on to show how wrong Obama is, is telling you with different examples why you are wrong on this one, give up your peculiar dictionary that very few use, it is really bad to see you now dismissing what you defended so much just recently. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/168 "2013-09-23T06:48:25Z")
Politifact was simply pointing out that Democrats are right when they say it’s a cut in the rate of growth. They did not explore the fact that up until that very moment, Democrats had decried all such things as “cuts”, and still do, as we’ve seen in the sequester battle. So, does the sequester cut spending or not? Explain how ACA is different from a sequester. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/169 "2013-09-23T07:21:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Politifact was simply pointing out that Democrats are right when they say it’s a cut in the rate of growth. They did not explore the fact that up until that very moment, Democrats had decried all such things as “cuts”, and still do, as we’ve seen in the sequester battle. > > So, does the sequester cut spending or not? Explain how ACA is different from a sequester. Read it again, as they explained it, “they are not actual cuts” “the Affordable Care Act does not eliminate $500 billion out of the current budget for Medicare. Most important, there are no cuts to guaranteed Medicare benefits.” . Sequestration is causing actual cuts in many areas. > **[Sequestration Begins To Sting Communities](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sequestration-effects_n_2996101)** > > Sequestration Begins To Sting Communities ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/170 "2013-09-23T07:42:58Z")
No, sequestration is cutting the rate of growth of domestic discretionary spending. And there are cuts. Subsidies to Medicare Advantage are sharply reduced, and provider payments are cut deeply. It is true there are no cuts in benefits, but that’s disingenous, because Medicare pays no actual benefits directly to seniors. It pays providers only. Therefore, a cut to providers is a cut to benefits, unless we assume that providers will just take the cuts and still provide the same level of service. Where did you think they could find $500 billion in Medicare savings? Magic? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/171 "2013-09-23T10:32:52Z")
The Republican budget has the same reimbursement cuts to Medicare as Obamacare. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/172 "2013-09-23T10:38:23Z")
Yes it does, and instead of putting the money into a new program, it reduces the deficit. The Republicans have wanted to make these cuts to Medicare for years, but Democrats always said they were savage, heartless cuts. Until they needed the money. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/173 "2013-09-23T11:02:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > “Urban” counts more than big cities, and big cities are where Democrats dominate. Not so much in “urban” cities of merely 100,000 people. > > Your supposed insights into urbanism are crap. Obama gained 69% of the vote in cities larger than half a million. In cities 50,000 to 500,000, he had 58% of the vote. > **[Cities won the 2012 election for President Obama – UrbanCincy](https://www.urbancincy.com/2012/11/cities-won-the-2012-election-for-president-obama/)** ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/174 "2013-09-23T11:16:58Z")
Which doesn’t actually contradict what I said, since 50,000-500,000 is a huge range that takes in cities we generally regard as pretty darn huge. Get back to me with data for cities of 50,000-100,000. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/175 "2013-09-23T11:19:37Z")
Why don’t you back up what you claim? Or is this just another example of “This board is just a conversation and I don’t look up cites in the middle of talking to another person?” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/176 "2013-09-23T11:20:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Which doesn’t actually contradict what I said, since 50,000-500,000 is a huge range that takes in cities we generally regard as pretty darn huge. Get back to me with data for cities of 50,000-100,000. Since you are the one who made the assertion, why don’t you come back with a cite that proves what you claimed? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/177 "2013-09-23T11:23:40Z")
You just did. Take one look at your map. A sea of red with blue enclaves. Now compare that to a map of congressional districts and you figured out why Democrats don’t control the House. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/178 "2013-09-23T11:27:24Z")
Anyway, here’s some backup: > **[The 2012 battle for the suburbs - The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-election-battlefield-in-mature-suburbs/index.html)** > > The mature suburbs were a shifting battleground in the past two presidential elections. They went for George W. Bush in 2004, but Barack Obama in 2008. The mature suburbs alone may not decide the 2012 presidential race, but they offer a geographic... In 2008, Obama managed to slightly win in suburbs, while dominating in the big cities. By contrast, Bush beat Kerry solidly in the suburbs. It may not be precisely what I claimed, but I think I’m on pretty firm ground in saying that Republicans do well once populations get below 100,000. Otherwise the election numbers wouldn’t add up. Simple math and a little logic is better than any cite. BTW, the cite says that “mature” suburbs are 75% to 95% urban, and those tend to go Republican(Obama’s candidacy in 2008 was an exception). Thus demolishing the contention that “urban” voters are predominantly Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/179 "2013-09-23T11:28:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Yes it does, and instead of putting the money into a new program, it reduces the deficit. Instead of putting the money into a new program _that lessens the impact by changing the structure of medical costs in the country overall_ it goes to deficit reduction which doesn’t actually help anyone who needs help in an economy hamstrung by, amongst other things, runaway medical costs. See, that’s the part you’re ignoring, the Republicans don’t have any problem with escalating medical costs (and the requisite hardship that causes millions of Americans, no doubt because they benefit their friends and benefactors in the insurance industry) and have no plan to do anything that would solve them. None of their suggested replacements for Obamacare address medical costs at all. They want to cut Medicare and have wanted to do so for decades, without addressing any of the factors which have caused Medicare spending to escalate. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152/180 "2013-09-23T11:32:44Z")
Since the cuts are the same, they both address Medicare spending growth in exactly the same way. The Ryan plan uses that savings to cut the deficit. The Obama plan uses that savings to fund a new entitlement. What I still want to know is why Democrats resisted these supposedly cost-free savings for 20 years. Or, more likely, these savings actually do have a real cost and Democrats aren’t being entirely truthful about that cost. MAybe they were being truthful when they were attacking Republicans viciously in the 90s for the same cuts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-shutting-down-the-government-a-winning-strategy/669152.md?page=10)