Meanwhile, at the Capital...

Can we do this Miataturbo style?

mtn wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: And I could post dozens of conversations I've encountered telling me I'm racist becuase I disagree with out CIC. It goes both berkeleying ways. LEarn to be polite of GTFO.

Wow. I was being humble and polite in my response. Get over it and recognize humility. (You could use a little yourself)

No, you weren't. A humble and polite response would have been:

Cone_Junky wrote: You're right, I shouldn't have crossed that line. Point taken.

Instead, you wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: You're right, I shouldn't have crossed that line. I could post dozens of extremely racist photos, picket signs, and memes to back my point. But then I would cross that same idiotic line. Point taken.

Problems with reading comprehension? I didn't want to cross the same line that the racists cross when they make stupid memes and signs.

"You're right" and "point taken" was about as obvious as it gets. I would phrase it in more of a Dr. Seuss form, but Ted Cruz proved the Right can't comprehend that either.

I love how people have to ruin a thread that started with posting funny memes.

Cone_Junky wrote: Problems with reading comprehension? I didn't want to cross the same line that the racists cross when they make stupid memes and signs. "You're right" and "point taken" was about as obvious as it gets. I would phrase it in more of a Dr. Seuss form, but Ted Cruz proved the Right can't comprehend that either.

Whatever your intentions, it came across to me as "I could post pictures to back up why I'm right and the racists are scared of a black president, but I won't, because posting those pictures would cross that line." It came across as a snarky jab.

mtn wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Problems with reading comprehension? I didn't want to cross the same line that the racists cross when they make stupid memes and signs. "You're right" and "point taken" was about as obvious as it gets. I would phrase it in more of a Dr. Seuss form, but Ted Cruz proved the Right can't comprehend that either.

Whatever your intentions, it came across to me as "I could post pictures to back up why I'm right and the racists are scared of a black president, but I won't, because posting those pictures would cross that line." It came across as a snarky jab.

Yep. Just like anyone that isn't a left-leaner is an inbred hick that can't understand Dr Seuss.

Seriously, just go away. You have shown you can't play nice.

Hey!

Before this thread gets locked: Can someone give me an opinion / idea as to what exactly the R's are trying to get out of this?

Please see my post above for details on my confusion, quick summary: They can't get rid of it, the changes I have heard they want will just make it worse.

( this is not some sort of trap, I really want to know )

Bobzilla wrote:

mtn wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Problems with reading comprehension? I didn't want to cross the same line that the racists cross when they make stupid memes and signs. "You're right" and "point taken" was about as obvious as it gets. I would phrase it in more of a Dr. Seuss form, but Ted Cruz proved the Right can't comprehend that either.

Whatever your intentions, it came across to me as "I could post pictures to back up why I'm right and the racists are scared of a black president, but I won't, because posting those pictures would cross that line." It came across as a snarky jab.

Yep. Just like anyone that isn't a left-leaner is an inbred hick that can't understand Dr Seuss. Seriously, just go away. You have shown you can't play nice.

I heard a "wise" man say once-"Jeebus peeps. Get the sand out of the vajayjay will yay? Lighten up fer cryin out loud. If you want a reason to hate on someone, just ask. I'm sure I can give you 10-15 good reasons for outrage. This ain't one of them."

You starting on that list?

One thing could be: Republican leadership misjudging the situation and thinking they can get Obama to cave like he did in 2011, which they won't be able to do.

aircooled wrote: Hey! Before this thread gets locked: Can someone give me an opinion / idea as to what exactly the R's are trying to get out of this? Please see my post above for details on my confusion, quick summary: They can't get rid of it, the changes I have heard they want will just make it worse. ( this is not some sort of trap, I really want to know )

Like Fritsch said, they're hoping he will cave. He won't.

I personally am against universal healthcare, but if we are going to do it, whatever the hell this thing is should be scrapped and started over. But before we do that, throw out all the R's for some who can compromise.

In reply to mtn:

Same with the D's that won't compromise......

mtn wrote: Like Fritsch said, they're hoping he will cave. He won't.....

As in dump it completely? That seems ridiculously unlikely. I can't imagine that is there actual goal in this situation (obviously it's their long term goal).

Pushing the implementation back a year was an early proposal

IB4TL

Different cheeks, same butt. Like was mentioned before, throw 'em all out and start over. People have to realize their guy/gal is just as bad as mine is. They were all hired by us to do a job and they aren't doing it. Where I come from, that gets you fired. Speaking of which, back to work.

yamaha wrote: In reply to mtn: Same with the D's that won't compromise......

This is a two way street. If I have followed this correctly, the Senate has rejected any proposal from the House. Even partial bills to keep things open/working while they argue out the rest.

So basically, every last one of these berkeleyers suck and need to go home. Once they (royal, because it applies to all of them) decided to folllow party lines over doing what is best for the country then they done berkeleyed up.

Bobzilla wrote: ...Even partial bills to keep things open/working while they argue out the rest...

To me, even this is ridiculous. What do they want to do, fund everything except, I don't know, the Department of Education?

Anything they don't fund is just hurting someone else anyway. They just want to fund the ones people notice so they don't look like a bunch of a-holes. That clearly will not work.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to slefain: There is no budget because the Senate has failed to pass every one forwarded from the House. Which party has controlled the Senate since 2009? And, yeah, the GOP is basically wrong in their approach in defunding the ACA. On the other hand, the House is intended as the "voice of the people" and what we have are duly elected representatives who are doing exactly what they were sent to accomplish. Rock, meet hard place. Ten-year cost projections are now two to three times more than what was first calculated. The ACA should be allowed to fail on its' own but there is the (logical) fear that the fiscal damage it will cause merits the defunding strategy.

Because every budget put forward has tried to kill programs the Democrats have in place and give kick backs, sorry, tax breaks to major corporations and campaign donors to the Republican party. Democrats aren't innocent of this, just controlling the Upper House of the Legislative Branch and the White House, gives them clean hands this time. The GOP is also doing a very good job of alienating moderate voters, who make up a majority of the country, by allowing the extremists in the party to run rampant. Not to mention the Dems have an excellent "Look what the middle age white racist party" marketing strategy going on. The bad part is, with the fringe getting the press in the GOP, they just keep adding NOS to the fire the Dems started. But to get to the point of all of this...

There was an interesting meeting shortly after Obama go elected that got reported only by a few new organizations, never got mainstream traction, that the Republicans will do everything in their power to completely grid lock every initiative from the Obama administration. Initially you can blow it off as a hoax but if you look at what they have done in the last 5 years, the GOP or the working mans party has put forward 0 jobs bills, but have presented multiple religious bills, repeal Obamacare, anti-gay marriage bills. All that have 0 chance of passing the Senate, but waste lots of time and political capital. So based on the actions of the GOP in the House the last 5 years. I would say meeting or not that is their plan.

This issue is all on the GOP. 100%. That doesn't make the Dems any cleaner just means they aren't the dirty ones this time.

Now about the ACA. The only re-evaluations I have seen that would even be close to being called non-partisan is the 50% adjustment from the CBO. I believe that is coming from the expansion of Medicaid, Medicare, and the subsidies that are being paid to normal enrollers. Remember, this program isn't a Democrat idea. The Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich wrote the original and tried to pass it in the 90s and failed and the Massachusetts system is awful close and is what the ACA was based on. But then again the devil is in the details.

In the end the ACA isn't the end all be all fix. It isn't close and a good enough start to build on. It is better than what we had, but nothing like Sweden (Best Value in Healthcare globally and in the top 10 for quality of care as well)

I am actually looking at the exchanges now. Mostly because my wife is sick and my sons Autism exacerbates my horrible company insurance (I mean bad. Like $540 a month with a $7200 deductible and only 80% after.) I will be able to give accurate information as soon as the system stop crashing.

Bobzilla wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to mtn: Same with the D's that won't compromise......

This is a two way street. If I have followed this correctly, the Senate has rejected any proposal from the House. Even partial bills to keep things open/working while they argue out the rest. So basically, every last one of these berkeleyers suck and need to go home. Once they (royal, because it applies to all of them) decided to folllow party lines over doing what is best for the country then they done berkeleyed up.

If they accept partial bills they won't have leverage to get what they want. That is a non-starter right there and frankly I am surprised they wasted any time on it.

Or I am giving all of DC way too much political IQ.

In reply to Flight Service:

Actually they sent a clean budget to the senate with one added stipulation. Removing the lawmakers exemption from the ACA(why are they exempt anyways) and even that was turned down.

How would them being in the ACA make any difference anyway? They, like the majority of the US, get their healthcare from their employer. Does this mean to credit them the employee cost and make them buy it on their own?

I don't understand how this is supposed to be bad for them. Or even different.

I guess the other side of that question is what effect does this exemption have? Exempt from what? They don't use the exchange anyway.

FOR PREZ!!!!!!!!!

In reply to aircooled:

That is the question, why did they bother exempting themselves. No laws should be passed in this nation that the government can simply exempt themselves.