Obama Puts Shutdown In Terms Home-Owning Xbox Gamers Can Understand

In case you were confused about the Democrats' position re: the ongoing U.S. government shutdown -- namely that they think it's dirty for Republicans to demand the defunding of Obamacare in order to pass a budget to keep the government open -- Barack Obama dumbed it down a little in a press conference today.

"You don't get a chance to call your bank and say, 'I'm not going to pay my mortgage this month unless you throw in a new car and an Xbox.'"

Further...

"If you're in negotiations around buying somebody's house, you don't get to say, 'Well, let's talk about the price I'm going to pay and if you don't give me the price I'm going to burn down your house.' That's not how negotiations work."

He sort of got that second one from Twitter.

To contact the author of this post, write to [email protected] or find him on Twitter @stephentotilo.


Comments

    Was all this adlib? those are some pretty poor analogies.

      Not really, it's exactly what the Republicans are doing. They're saying "We're not going to let you raise the debt ceiling unless we get our way and you get rid of Obamacare".

      Also, this is a terrible article. "He said Xbox! It's therefore relevant to video games!".

        Its the hard right wing party (The Tea Party) forcing republican members to take this action. The republican party has to listen to them because otherwise they loose a shit load of funding.

        I find it bizarre they're going to these lengths to kill off Obamacare. I mean the law passed congress a couple of years ago, didn't it? Since then he's taken his record to an election and been re-elected - if the American people were that strongly opposed to it, they would have booted him out. It's pretty hard after that to justify going to these lengths to try and get it repealed / watered down. I mean by all means have a discussion about it, but holding the entire government / economy to ransom over it? Utter stupidity.

          yep and the supreme court even said that it constiutional. the big thing here is that the republican party is having a massive civil war between the moderates and then the extreme right wing tea party fanatics like ted cruez and michelle bachman

          It shouldn't be possible in a modern democracy for a party in the minority to stamp its feet and block all progress, but... well. MURRICA!

            Let's not forget this is the same party that produces (and attracts) people like this... http://www.news.com.au/world-news/michele-bachmann-obama-has-brought-the-end-times/story-fndir2ev-1226734715961

          I think I heard there was an election coming up (Midterms?) and they're trying to look as extreme as possible to accommodate the swing to the right that America's been having.

            But is it having a swing to the right? I would have thought the ease with which Obama won the presidential election last year would indicate the opposite and might have suggested to them that perhaps being less-extreme would be the way to go.

            Midterms aren't till Nov 2014

          Healthcare is one of the gigantic bargaining chips businesses use as leverage against employees. They'll fight this to the bitter end for that reason alone. Can't let the sponsors think you didn't do everything you could to block it. I don't want to go all conspiracy theory on it, but there's a reason people worked so hard to paint it as a gateway drug to communism even though any rational adult can see it's closer to the fire department or police force than lining up in the snow for turnips.

          It also doesn't help that Obama has his name stamped all over it, so if it works out for the best and people like it (which seems pretty likely) Obamacare will be a vote winner for the next few elections.

            Fox news dubbed it Obamacare so that's where that came from. It's called the Affordable healthcare Act. The name has nothing to do with Obama or his administration.

            The right wing problem is, they dubbed it Obamacare while trying to destroy it. Obama is a dirty word to them. Of course their big worry is that once people have it, they'll like it. So their attack name for it, may actually help Obama.

          The reasoning might be that Insurance companies have too much to lose if health care goes public.
          Insurance companies back congressmen, so congressmen want to keep the backing(Backing = money btw), so the oppose obamacare.

      A better analogy is a family choosing a restaurant to eat at, and everyone votes, but every time the majority decides on something, the sulky teenager says 'No' and for some bizarre, unthinkable reason, everyone listens instead of telling the idiotic little shit to go fuck himself, and the one kid just keeps on saying, "Nuh-uh, not happening," until he gets his way, so that you wonder what the fuck was the point of everyone voting in the first place, why not just make the juvenile the supreme ruler of all decisions forever?

        Or... "That's a nice restaurant you have there, shame if anything happened to it."

    Oct 2008: "You'll never get elected and pass healthcare."
    Nov 2008: "We'll never let you pass healthcare."
    Jan 2009: "We're gonna shout you down every time you try to pass healthcare."
    July 2009: "We'll fight to death every attempt you make to pass healthcare."
    Dec 2009: "We will destroy you if you even consider passing healthcare."
    March 2010: "We can't believe you just passed healthcare."
    April 2010: "We are going to overturn healthcare."
    Sept 2010: "We are going to repeal healthcare."
    Jan 2011: "We are going to destroy healthcare."
    Feb 2012: "We're gonna elect a candidate who'll revoke healthcare NOW."
    June 2012: "We'll go to the Supreme Court, and they will overturn healthcare."
    Aug 2012: "American people'll never re-elect you-they don't want healthcare."
    Oct 2012: "We can't wait to win the election and explode healthcare."
    Nov 2012: "We can't believe you got re-elected & we can't repeal healthcare."
    Feb 2013: "We're still going to vote to obliterate healthcare."
    June 2013: "We can't believe the Supreme Court just upheld healthcare."
    July 2013: "We're going to vote like 35 more times to erase healthcare."
    Sept 2013: "We are going to leverage a government shutdown into defunding, destroying, obliterating, overturning, repealing, dismantling, erasing and ripping apart healthcare."
    Oct 2013: "WHY AREN'T YOU NEGOTIATING???"

    In Australia we would most likely burn the whole of canberra to the ground and hunt politicians to near extinction if they got rid of universal health care.......I struggle with why a country would not want it. I'm a well off guy who only knows the public health system as that small old looking hospital next to my nice shiny one but I'm still glad for universal health care.

      Basically because they are rich old men who don't want to waste their tax-money on health care for the people who need it :P

      There is a lot of discussion with regards to this and many other things that are taken for granted which in turn bring up theories (some of them bordering on the ridiculous).

      The funny thing I see is that typically in countries, those who support more left leaning parties tend to be the impoverished or uneducated people (ie the unwashed masses) due to their social programs, as opposed to more right-wing pro-business policies. In the US however, quite a lot of southerners vote for the republicans even though in some cases they don't really work in their interests. All the know is that big government is bad, never mind things like universal healthcare and educational programs would actually benefit them.

        A misconception. The Republican party has two very distinct wings that are like oil and water. There's the supposed fiscal conservatives, the empty suits who are stupidly wealthy (Romney, the Bush family). But while they have the money, they don't have the numbers so they basically bought out Fox News to convince the stupid half of the poor people (disillusioned Southerners) to vote against their self-interest.

        Yes, conservatives in the US are generally poor (and also, ironically, the main recipients of federal money), but there's a core of that is very rich and educated, but possibly psychotic.

      It's also hideously expensive over there. Here it's, what, about $600 a year? Over there it's closer to that per month. And the US has shitty wages.

      As far as I know its not quite a universal healthcare scheme like we have here...
      The system basically says everyone who is not provided health insurance by their employer (businesses with 50+ full time employees must provide insurance) must purchase some form of insurance for themselves or be fined. Insurance companies are also now prevented from refusing to insure people due to a pre existing condition. Since everyone must have insurance and the options for shopping around will be greater this should drive the prices down and create actual competition while also ensuring that people have access to some form of reasonably priced health insurance.
      The republicans are trying as hard as they can to delay or defund the act even tho it has been passed into law and been deemed constitutional by the supreme court. They are being dicks of the highest order and costing the US about $200million a day plus screwing over people who rely on services that during the shutdown are not running.

        Not to mention all the government employees who aren't getting paid, like AT ALL.

        I don't get how they are complaining about 'obamacare' and how it's making people 'pay for everyone else' (even though everyone including themselves will get healthcare cover) but are themselves costing the American public money. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.

        It's really all in favour of big business, making sure their insurance company CEO buddies get maximum funds from the people that can afford it, but also making sure they have to actually pay out the bare minimum.

        I love it how it's branded as 'socialism' as if it's a dirty word. Because it's a bad thing that everyone will be covered by a universal healthcare system. If that's what socialism is (ie everyone helping everyone else) then what is so bad about it?

      Yeah, good luck with that. We just elected a party of lizard people who want to privatise EVERYTHING and you better believe health is on the list.

    You can't have abortions! It's murder! We're pro-life!

    Oh but no healthcare though guys, also you know those things that can murder human beings faster than the blink of an eye? Yeah man, keep em' legal and sell that shit in supermarkets.

    P.S little Jeffery shot grandma with a videogame.

    Last edited 09/10/13 12:17 pm

    No one seems to understand that Obama has broken his promises regarding the ACA, he said you don't have change your plan if you like it and that it'll be cheaper, both of which is wrong.
    Socialism works until you run out of other people's money, 17 trillion in debt and your saying everyone has to play for everyone else's healthcare even when they still owe 60 trillion in unfunded liabilities such as social security. A lot of you's need to look at the bigger picture rather than blame one side when at the end of the day it's both of their fault.

      Hopefully they'll decrease military spending to pay for it.

      ...lol.

      17 trillion in debt and your saying everyone has to play for everyone else's healthcare

      Firstly, that debt is not caused by 'socialism.' Bush turned a healthy surplus into a burning hole in the ground through two unpaid wars while slashing taxes on the rich, something that has never been done by any president and evidently, doesn't work. He pulled a dine and dash and Obama happened to pick up the tab.

      Also, this canard that "BULLSHIT! I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR MY NEIGHBOUR'S HEALTHCARE!" is firstly selfish, and second, doesn't even make sense. American already pay for others' healthcare, that's why premiums are so high. People who can't afford insurance, use their ED because of their medico-legal obligation. You're already paying for it, and not just that, you're paying more because there's no efficient distribution of resources, and because an ED is not a GP's office.

      Last edited 09/10/13 6:25 pm

        Have you even seen the premiums under Obamacare? Say you're paying $75 a week on your current plan but when you are forced to change you'll be paying around $300+. That hurts the poor and middle class the most, and if you want to pay for someone else's healthcare you can if you want but tell me how you possess the moral authority to force me to pay for other people's?

        Don't start the 'Blame Bush' game, Obama has doubled the total debt, continued the wars, allowed the federal reserve to devalue the US dollar by printing money and is arguably the worst president that US has ever had, everything Bush has done, Obama's done but worse.

          This guy's a crackup! I hazard to guess what sort of history books you be readin' ... Don't think it's any the mainstream read though.

      You are staggeringly uninformed on how governmental funding and national/global economics work.

        Then by all means educate me, but first tell me the first rule of economics and we'll see.

    Maybe if they'd stop spending all their money on weapons, they wouldn't be so tight assed about giving some money to better the health of the people.

      You've got the right idea, the US has got over 900 military bases in 150 countries, they don't need soldiers stationed in Germany and Korea anymore.

Join the discussion!