Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
That's why it goes to conference so they can meet somewhere in the middle (which was clearly defined as Cuts WITH Spending ratio TBD [Although it's worth mentioning the Republican Presidential candidates universally agreed that $10 in cuts for every $1 in spending wasn't enough)
Well actually you only need 51 in the senate unless you're up against Republicans who have made the filibuster (more than anyone ever) part of regular Senate procedure to do anything. Not to mention 1 year would be plenty of time to do something that has allegedly already been done by the house about 40 times.
Le sigh. Ask people to look at the other POV, instead get partisan rhetoric. I understand perfectly that the Dems don't want to sacrifice Obamacare, hundreds of them lost their seats for that bill, it was a huge sacrifice.
Government shutdown is bad... many friends at CDC can't do any work. Things will get much worse though on Oct 17 if the tea partiers decide to detonate the suicide vest and bring everything down.
On October 02 2013 12:26 ZeaL. wrote: Government shutdown is bad... many friends at CDC can't do any work. Things will get much worse though on Oct 17 if the tea partiers decide to detonate the suicide vest and bring everything down.
I used to be really freaked out about it, but there's no real chance of that happening right? Boehner at the very least isn't going to sacrifice the entire country just for the sake of looking good for the tea party. He could call for a clean bill with the support of those 25 moderate republicans and everything would work out. Not even sure if Boehner is really necessary either
Also on a separate note I don't see this as a lose-lose for Boehner. He should just become a moderate republican, chances are the tea party will dwindle in influence over time because well they're kind of extremist and you won't get anything done on the fringe. Then the republicans can move to become more centrist, and he'll probably have more allies based on his reasonable actions today.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
On October 02 2013 12:26 ZeaL. wrote: Government shutdown is bad... many friends at CDC can't do any work. Things will get much worse though on Oct 17 if the tea partiers decide to detonate the suicide vest and bring everything down.
I used to be really freaked out about it, but there's no real chance of that happening right? Boehner at the very least isn't going to sacrifice the entire country just for the sake of looking good for the tea party. He could call for a clean bill with the support of those 25 moderate republicans and everything would work out. Not even sure if Boehner is really necessary either
Also on a separate note I don't see this as a lose-lose for Boehner. He should just become a moderate republican, chances are the tea party will dwindle in influence over time because well they're kind of extremist and you won't get anything done on the fringe. Then the republicans can move to become more centrist, and he'll probably have more allies based on his reasonable actions today.
Who knows? Some people have been talking about how Boehner let this fight go on to disgrace the TP caucus while limiting the damage but I'm not so sure he's got that kind of foresight. I guess even if it wasn't his intention, we've got this result. He can try to do what you suggest and moderate his party..... or he's so scared of a primary that he'd go along with not raising the debt ceiling (or maybe he might care about not fucking everyone over?)
On October 02 2013 12:26 ZeaL. wrote: Government shutdown is bad... many friends at CDC can't do any work. Things will get much worse though on Oct 17 if the tea partiers decide to detonate the suicide vest and bring everything down.
I used to be really freaked out about it, but there's no real chance of that happening right? Boehner at the very least isn't going to sacrifice the entire country just for the sake of looking good for the tea party. He could call for a clean bill with the support of those 25 moderate republicans and everything would work out. Not even sure if Boehner is really necessary either
Also on a separate note I don't see this as a lose-lose for Boehner. He should just become a moderate republican, chances are the tea party will dwindle in influence over time because well they're kind of extremist and you won't get anything done on the fringe. Then the republicans can move to become more centrist, and he'll probably have more allies based on his reasonable actions today.
Reid could agree to cutting the taxes out and delaying the individual mandate for a year. Who knows? Maybe he wants the non-essential government agencies working more than the Republicans. Ho hum, there have been 17 shutdowns since 1976. This makes 18. Somehow, we live on and prosper.
I haven't completely thrown out the unrepentant ideologue Obama from making a compromise. Let's get some Woodward up in this place
The 1930s. The Great Depression. Who was the speaker of the House? Anyone, anyone? Who was the president? Roosevelt. History will not be kind to Obama.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
That's why it goes to conference so they can meet somewhere in the middle (which was clearly defined as Cuts WITH Spending ratio TBD [Although it's worth mentioning the Republican Presidential candidates universally agreed that $10 in cuts for every $1 in spending wasn't enough)
Well actually you only need 51 in the senate unless you're up against Republicans who have made the filibuster (more than anyone ever) part of regular Senate procedure to do anything. Not to mention 1 year would be plenty of time to do something that has allegedly already been done by the house about 40 times.
Le sigh. Ask people to look at the other POV, instead get partisan rhetoric. I understand perfectly that the Dems don't want to sacrifice Obamacare, hundreds of them lost their seats for that bill, it was a huge sacrifice.
Just because the truth makes you and them look bad, doesn't make it partisan... Perhaps you don't remember Scott Brown and the rhetoric surrounding him...
But that's not what they did. They went on lying for months about ridiculous things like Planned Parenthood, 'Death Panels', and Uncle Sam in womens Vaginas....
That among 1000's of other reasons are why most reasonable people understand why Obama would not take republicans seriously when they say they want to 'negotiate'.
lol @ that video, just saw one of those on the Daily Show and like Jon Stewart said: "Republicans don't care if you get fingerf**ked by Uncle Sam, they're afraid you're gonna like it".
There is a very good reason why the democrats can't agree to negotiate right now. If they do, they're telling the republicans that their behavior is an acceptable form of governance.
You don't give in to the demands of a child throwing a temper tantrum because you're just encouraging them to keep doing it anytime they want something.
But that's not what they did. They went on lying for months about ridiculous things like Planned Parenthood, 'Death Panels', and Uncle Sam in womens Vaginas....
That among 1000's of other reasons are why most reasonable people understand why Obama would not take republicans seriously when they say they want to 'negotiate'.
lol @ that video, just saw one of those on the Daily Show and like Jon Stewart said: "Republicans don't care if you get fingerf**ked by Uncle Sam, they're afraid you're gonna like it".
hahhah
Funny thing is the only people who want government to look up a woman's vagina are Republican legislatures like Virginia..
In a fantasy world where the Dems to capitulate, what happens during the debt ceiling vote and the next CR? What more concessions can Dems give short of repealing Obamacare or dismantling the majority of the framework that would actually give it a chance to work?
We all know Ted Cruz and his flock won't give it up. What's to stop them?
On October 02 2013 12:46 SnipedSoul wrote: There is a very good reason why the democrats can't agree to negotiate right now. If they do, they're telling the republicans that their behavior is an acceptable form of governance.
You don't give in to the demands of a child throwing a temper tantrum because you're just encouraging them to keep doing it anytime they want something.
Basically if you let them have their way this means that anytime a budget needs to be passed its a free ticket to get whatever you want from the other side.
On October 02 2013 12:26 ZeaL. wrote: Government shutdown is bad... many friends at CDC can't do any work. Things will get much worse though on Oct 17 if the tea partiers decide to detonate the suicide vest and bring everything down.
I used to be really freaked out about it, but there's no real chance of that happening right? Boehner at the very least isn't going to sacrifice the entire country just for the sake of looking good for the tea party. He could call for a clean bill with the support of those 25 moderate republicans and everything would work out. Not even sure if Boehner is really necessary either
Also on a separate note I don't see this as a lose-lose for Boehner. He should just become a moderate republican, chances are the tea party will dwindle in influence over time because well they're kind of extremist and you won't get anything done on the fringe. Then the republicans can move to become more centrist, and he'll probably have more allies based on his reasonable actions today.
Reid could agree to cutting the taxes out and delaying the individual mandate for a year. Who knows? Maybe he wants the non-essential government agencies working more than the Republicans. Ho hum, there have been 17 shutdowns since 1976. This makes 18. Somehow, we live on and prosper.
I haven't completely thrown out the unrepentant ideologue Obama from making a compromise. Let's get some Woodward up in this place http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLY8OAW5ZzE
The 1930s. The Great Depression. Who was the speaker of the House? Anyone, anyone? Who was the president? Roosevelt. History will not be kind to Obama.
Except if this is an extended shutdown then hundreds of thousands of people won't get paychecks, thousands of SSI claims wont be processed, small businesses dependent on traffic to federal parks and monuments won't be able to meet their bottom lines, then their employees won't get paychecks, then their creditors won't get paid on time, debts/fines pile up, etc...
The negative economic ripples of such a terrible strategy used by the Tea Party effects many more people than you understand and in far more negative ways than you seem to consider (I think I see a bubble).
Dems should trade the ACA for strict gun control, 70+% tax rate on top 1%, and extremely harsh caps on carbon emissions. Once republicans reject these demands, democrats need to run crying to the press about how those big meanie republicans won't negotiate.
On October 02 2013 12:46 SnipedSoul wrote: There is a very good reason why the democrats can't agree to negotiate right now. If they do, they're telling the republicans that their behavior is an acceptable form of governance.
You don't give in to the demands of a child throwing a temper tantrum because you're just encouraging them to keep doing it anytime they want something.
Basically if you let them have their way this means that anytime a budget needs to be passed its a free ticket to get whatever you want from the other side.
lol, go to foxnews right now and read the front page + Show Spoiler +
Big government is too fat right, furloughing around 1 million people is just trimming the fat right. Eh, no worries, they're just lazy government leeches stealing tax money.
But that's not what they did. They went on lying for months about ridiculous things like Planned Parenthood, 'Death Panels', and Uncle Sam in womens Vaginas....
That among 1000's of other reasons are why most reasonable people understand why Obama would not take republicans seriously when they say they want to 'negotiate'.
lol @ that video, just saw one of those on the Daily Show and like Jon Stewart said: "Republicans don't care if you get fingerf**ked by Uncle Sam, they're afraid you're gonna like it".
hahhah
Funny thing is the only people who want government to look up a woman's vagina are Republican legislatures like Virginia..
In a fantasy world where the Dems to capitulate, what happens during the debt ceiling vote and the next CR? What more concessions can Dems give short of repealing Obamacare or dismantling the majority of the framework that would actually give it a chance to work?
We all know Ted Cruz and his flock won't give it up. What's to stop them?
Yeah the ridiculous hypocrisy of it would be Ironic if it wasn't political.
Republicans literally voted to force women to have something stuck in their vagina (vaginal ultrasound) in order to get an abortion. (screams small government, it has to fit in any womans vagina?)
On October 02 2013 12:58 ZeaL. wrote: lol, go to foxnews right now and read the front page + Show Spoiler +
Big government is too fat right, furloughing around 1 million people is just trimming the fat right. Eh, no worries, they're just lazy government leeches stealing tax money.
they make it sound the the government is on a diet!
On October 02 2013 12:26 ZeaL. wrote: Government shutdown is bad... many friends at CDC can't do any work. Things will get much worse though on Oct 17 if the tea partiers decide to detonate the suicide vest and bring everything down.
I used to be really freaked out about it, but there's no real chance of that happening right? Boehner at the very least isn't going to sacrifice the entire country just for the sake of looking good for the tea party. He could call for a clean bill with the support of those 25 moderate republicans and everything would work out. Not even sure if Boehner is really necessary either
Also on a separate note I don't see this as a lose-lose for Boehner. He should just become a moderate republican, chances are the tea party will dwindle in influence over time because well they're kind of extremist and you won't get anything done on the fringe. Then the republicans can move to become more centrist, and he'll probably have more allies based on his reasonable actions today.
Reid could agree to cutting the taxes out and delaying the individual mandate for a year. Who knows? Maybe he wants the non-essential government agencies working more than the Republicans. Ho hum, there have been 17 shutdowns since 1976. This makes 18. Somehow, we live on and prosper.
I haven't completely thrown out the unrepentant ideologue Obama from making a compromise. Let's get some Woodward up in this place http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLY8OAW5ZzE
The 1930s. The Great Depression. Who was the speaker of the House? Anyone, anyone? Who was the president? Roosevelt. History will not be kind to Obama.
Except if this is an extended shutdown then hundreds of thousands of people won't get paychecks, thousands of SSI claims wont be processed, small businesses dependent on traffic to federal parks and monuments won't be able to meet their bottom lines, then their employees won't get paychecks, then their creditors won't get paid on time, debts/fines pile up, etc...
The negative economic ripples of such a terrible strategy used by the Tea Party effects many more people than you understand and in far more negative ways than you seem to consider (I think I see a bubble).
Oh I know, the horrors. Unprecedented! This has never happened before! If you go back 20 years ... oops if you go back two decades it happened. 1995 and 1996, Gingrich. Three weeks. Republicans gained 2 seats in the Senate and lost the seats in the House that were trending that way anyways after the big House win previous. Got welfare reform and a nearly balanced budget. Some disaster.
Negative ripples? Ha! Get out of the pool if you can't stand the ripples. There's plenty of room for hand-wringing on the sides. Oh but these Republicans ... oh the country ... oh the inhumanity ... oh unprecedented! Lighten up about the history of negotiating with Democrats for the last two or three decades. A couple Republicans grow some spines and you'd think it was Congressional anarchy if you listen to the mainstream media too much.
On October 02 2013 12:26 ZeaL. wrote: Government shutdown is bad... many friends at CDC can't do any work. Things will get much worse though on Oct 17 if the tea partiers decide to detonate the suicide vest and bring everything down.
I used to be really freaked out about it, but there's no real chance of that happening right? Boehner at the very least isn't going to sacrifice the entire country just for the sake of looking good for the tea party. He could call for a clean bill with the support of those 25 moderate republicans and everything would work out. Not even sure if Boehner is really necessary either
Also on a separate note I don't see this as a lose-lose for Boehner. He should just become a moderate republican, chances are the tea party will dwindle in influence over time because well they're kind of extremist and you won't get anything done on the fringe. Then the republicans can move to become more centrist, and he'll probably have more allies based on his reasonable actions today.
Reid could agree to cutting the taxes out and delaying the individual mandate for a year. Who knows? Maybe he wants the non-essential government agencies working more than the Republicans. Ho hum, there have been 17 shutdowns since 1976. This makes 18. Somehow, we live on and prosper.
I haven't completely thrown out the unrepentant ideologue Obama from making a compromise. Let's get some Woodward up in this place http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLY8OAW5ZzE
The 1930s. The Great Depression. Who was the speaker of the House? Anyone, anyone? Who was the president? Roosevelt. History will not be kind to Obama.
Except if this is an extended shutdown then hundreds of thousands of people won't get paychecks, thousands of SSI claims wont be processed, small businesses dependent on traffic to federal parks and monuments won't be able to meet their bottom lines, then their employees won't get paychecks, then their creditors won't get paid on time, debts/fines pile up, etc...
The negative economic ripples of such a terrible strategy used by the Tea Party effects many more people than you understand and in far more negative ways than you seem to consider (I think I see a bubble).
Oh I know, the horrors. Unprecedented! This has never happened before! If you go back 20 years ... oops if you go back two decades it happened. 1995 and 1996, Gingrich. Three weeks. Republicans gained 2 seats in the Senate and lost the seats in the House that were trending that way anyways after the big House win previous. Got welfare reform and a nearly balanced budget. Some disaster.
Negative ripples? Ha! Get out of the pool if you can't stand the ripples. There's plenty of room for hand-wringing on the sides. Oh but these Republicans ... oh the country ... oh the inhumanity ... oh unprecedented! Lighten up about the history of negotiating with Democrats for the last two or three decades. A couple Republicans grow some spines and you'd think it was Congressional anarchy if you listen to the mainstream media too much.
You do remember this part though right?
"Sixty-four percent opposed Gingrich’s re-election as speaker in January 1997. And when he announced in November 1998 that he was stepping down, 70 percent approved."
On October 02 2013 12:26 ZeaL. wrote: Government shutdown is bad... many friends at CDC can't do any work. Things will get much worse though on Oct 17 if the tea partiers decide to detonate the suicide vest and bring everything down.
I used to be really freaked out about it, but there's no real chance of that happening right? Boehner at the very least isn't going to sacrifice the entire country just for the sake of looking good for the tea party. He could call for a clean bill with the support of those 25 moderate republicans and everything would work out. Not even sure if Boehner is really necessary either
Also on a separate note I don't see this as a lose-lose for Boehner. He should just become a moderate republican, chances are the tea party will dwindle in influence over time because well they're kind of extremist and you won't get anything done on the fringe. Then the republicans can move to become more centrist, and he'll probably have more allies based on his reasonable actions today.
Reid could agree to cutting the taxes out and delaying the individual mandate for a year. Who knows? Maybe he wants the non-essential government agencies working more than the Republicans. Ho hum, there have been 17 shutdowns since 1976. This makes 18. Somehow, we live on and prosper.
I haven't completely thrown out the unrepentant ideologue Obama from making a compromise. Let's get some Woodward up in this place http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLY8OAW5ZzE
The 1930s. The Great Depression. Who was the speaker of the House? Anyone, anyone? Who was the president? Roosevelt. History will not be kind to Obama.
Except if this is an extended shutdown then hundreds of thousands of people won't get paychecks, thousands of SSI claims wont be processed, small businesses dependent on traffic to federal parks and monuments won't be able to meet their bottom lines, then their employees won't get paychecks, then their creditors won't get paid on time, debts/fines pile up, etc...
The negative economic ripples of such a terrible strategy used by the Tea Party effects many more people than you understand and in far more negative ways than you seem to consider (I think I see a bubble).
Oh I know, the horrors. Unprecedented! This has never happened before! If you go back 20 years ... oops if you go back two decades it happened. 1995 and 1996, Gingrich. Three weeks. Republicans gained 2 seats in the Senate and lost the seats in the House that were trending that way anyways after the big House win previous. Got welfare reform and a nearly balanced budget. Some disaster.
Negative ripples? Ha! Get out of the pool if you can't stand the ripples. There's plenty of room for hand-wringing on the sides. Oh but these Republicans ... oh the country ... oh the inhumanity ... oh unprecedented! Lighten up about the history of negotiating with Democrats for the last two or three decades. A couple Republicans grow some spines and you'd think it was Congressional anarchy if you listen to the mainstream media too much.
Whether or not it's a disaster in the end for your country as a whole, I think everyone should be showing some sympathy for the almost 1 million people that aren't being paid for their jobs while the shutdown happens, it's quite a huge number of people.... Even if what some people in this thread say is true and they get paid back for any missed pay in the future, it can very badly affect somebody's life to even miss a single one.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expand power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kMeU5FW.png)
