from ZH:





At least there will plenty of seats on the train this morning.

You live in the dc area, right?

I live in the western suburbs of DC (recession proof 'merica), but I work three blocks east of the White House. It doesn't look any less crowd this morning based on the line at Starbucks... unless people just have nothing to do and so they are taking a long-ass coffee break.

I'll be in DC tomorrow.

so is there anyone who believes this is a reasonable action by the GOP in trying to block the instituting of "Obamacare"?
If so, I'd be interested in why...

.

I think what they are doing is stupid but, what is the harm in delaying the individual mandate for a year? Other than political reasons?

CNBC seems really disappointed that the market is up today.

I am no fan of the ACA, but this is a ridiculous fight that the Republicans will lose and risk not recovering from if it drags on for a few weeks.

junior high morons, all of them

as John Stewart pointed out last night - this is a law that was instituted in 2009, by being put through the very specific processes required by the constitution and was approved accordingly. what's left to debate, compromise, change, restrict, or otherwise block? This action only comes across (at least to me) as a child stamping his foot and holding his breath in hopes some one will give in to their temper tantrums...

also pointed out by Stewart - when football teams suffer a loss in a game to an opposing team, they accept it. they don't try to shut down the NFL because they didn't like the loss...
shouldn't we expect at least as much rational behavior out of our governing bodies as is exhibited by our football teams?

But the law is clearly not ready to be implemented as evidenced by all of the technical problems with the exchanges, some of which won't be ready for weeks. The only reason the Democrats don't want it delayed for a year is because they know it's going to be a disaster and would rather have the disaster this year instead of next year when it would happen a month before elections. Obama already delayed a whole bunch of other provisions, why not actually wait until the thing is ready to implemented?

sorry, I haven't paid close enough attention - what are the technical problems? (not being facetious, I'd like examples)

and I hate to mention it- but no one knows what's going to be or not going to be a disaster, that's speculation on your part, and and is likely due to your own political perspectives- which I'm not trying to belittle, but this is going to be true of anyone of any political leaning- this is why speculating that something is going to fail based on your own opinions is usually not a valid reason to make declarative statements.
it's like using polling - it's all dependent on how you decide to interpret it.

also worth pointing out - if you believe ANY of the actions by the GOP AREN'T politically motivated, I don't think I can carry on any further conversation, because it seems to me you're trying to reduce this down to the Democrats rubbing their collective hands together in secret glee over their potential gains politically, and the poor Republicans are just trying to do what's right- please correct my assumptions if otherwise.

also, does this then boil down for you to : it's a stupid action, but that's ok because the GOP's heart is in the right place?

The coverage offered in the ACA exchanges doesn't start until January, so in reality they have several months to work out the online glitches. I do agree that the Dems rush to implement is to cover themselves for the elections, but that's not a reason to shutdown the US government.

Here's a link to some of the technical problems. Somebody also started a thread here too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/us/as ... epare.html

The actions of the GOP are politically motivating, as are the Democrats' actions. No, I don't believe the GOP are trying to do what's right, but if the exchanges were not ready to be put into place, again what is the harm in putting it off a year?

You don't have to shut down Government to encourage postponement of a policy. Seems a bit much.