Republicans Drowning the Baby called Government as per Norquist.

[Sallow]

Reid and the senate demrats won't budge on anything, but the GOP is to blame? You are full of it.

The Law was passed.

You don't get a "do over" because you don't like the results. "Budging" would mean setting a new precedent on the legislative process.

That would be a huge break to the government. One that may not be repairable.

The "law" was passed, but we're discussing budgets and prior congresses do not get to vote on the 2013 budget

Wait, what?

The funding was part of the law.

That's how it works.

That's how the exchanges are up without the government being "open".

 

[Amelia]

Well in this case it does..

Reagan is the Conservative Gold Standard.

Well, no it doesn't. Because all it does is keep people fighting instead of working towards a solution.

The "solution" is pretty clear.

The conservatives follow precedent and hand the President of the United States a clean bill.

If they don't do that..the shutdown will continue.

Psst ... just because Obama says something is unprecedented doesn't make it so. He doesn't even remember the carp he pulled as a Senator so don't go by his declarations.

I'm only tell you this because I care. <3

 

[kaz]

The Law was passed.

You don't get a "do over" because you don't like the results. "Budging" would mean setting a new precedent on the legislative process.

That would be a huge break to the government. One that may not be repairable.

The "law" was passed, but we're discussing budgets and prior congresses do not get to vote on the 2013 budget

Wait, what?

The funding was part of the law.

That's how it works.

That's how the exchanges are up without the government being "open".

suppose the 2004 republican congress voted to fund war in iraq in 2013, and there weren't the votes to do that. But Republicans refused to vote without it.

you'd be good with that, right? The 2004 Republican congress dictating to the 2013 congress what they have to spend?

 

[kwc57]

The solution, is that the ACA has problems that should be addressed. But the republicans are too busy trying to scrap the whole thing, while the democrats are too proud to change anything.

Actually they just asked for ONE YEAR to delay implementation
so that issues could be addressed. I ran into this "all or nothing" issue also, where hard-core objectionists don't see that more time is going to fix things because the DEMS will
waste it being obstructionist also, who are equally hard-core and won't budge.

What I learned from the Green/Occupy "consensus" process is that
objectionists/obstructionists should be allowed to give input 100% until satisfied but should
not be able to block a vote WITHOUT OFFERING A SOLUTION to allow a consensus.

There need to be MODERATORS in charge to take the input and compel solutions or the NO VOTES shouldn't count. Someone else can offer a solution but SOMEONE HAS TO, and these solutions cannot be rejected either WITHOUT ACCEPTING A CORRECTION to them.

You just can't count yes and no votes when it's so close at 50/50
That means the conflicts should be resolved and not rely on majority rule to decide.

And if the Parties can't agree, then separate the funding and policies
and let Party organizations implement their own solutions privately.
Just like churches or denominations having separate congregations.

We separate religious beliefs from govt policy, why not political beliefs,
especially where people disagree religiously and should not impose on each other!
Just have separate programs, and go fund your own for members who want that choice!

They are asking for a year, not to be reasonable, but to kill it.

Reasonable would be to allow implementation, look for defects and make corrections.

That's how these things work.

Liberals are the only navy in the world that will put to sea with a gaping hole in the hull and proclaim they will fix it after they are under way.

 

[Spoonman]

Well they said they wanted to do this..

And it's done.

Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

its a baby that should have been aborted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sallow misses TM more than he can admit

 

[emilynghiem]

They are asking for a year, not to be reasonable, but to kill it.

Reasonable would be to allow implementation, look for defects and make corrections.

That's how these things work.

Why not allow implementation by choice not by force?
Paul and many citizens have called for the people voting for it to be under it.
So why not implement it to the same degree that the supporters support it?
And if they choose to opt out and exempt themselves,
then allow the same freedom for all citizens to choose to participate or
to change it where they would choose later? If the President and others have this choice?
Why not?

What force?

They can "opt out" and pay a nominal tax.

One that isn't even enforced.

That's taxation without representation.
They didn't agree to pay the tax. Get it?

If you're prochoice, that's like prolife people passing a policy
forcing people to pay fine or tax if they want the choice of abortion.
While people who don't mind giving up this choice don't have to pay a fine or tax.

What if people want some OTHER CHOICE to cover health care "BESIDES" INSURANCE?
Why is that being fined or taxed? Why not REWARD people for setting up better systems?

Why are you punishing people with a tax
for not believing in giving authority to federal govt
that should be reserved to citizens or states?

Why not give tax breaks for setting a vet housing or teaching hospital system
that people DO believe in?

What if I believe in spiritual healing as reducing costs of crime and health care
so everyone can be covered. But my money can't go there, it has to pay a tax
into a govt system that CANNOT offer spiritual healing as part of mental and medical care?

NOTE: I am working two jobs, like a slave, to promote sustainable plans which WOULD provide low cost health care as well as housing, jobs and educational internships
combined as a community campus to reform the welfare and govt system.

But people are too busy fighting the unconstitutionality of this bill
to invest their money into saving this historic district that COULD be used as
a model and alternative to health care, funded and developed as private school
or business or as a government reform program that is optional to fund.

Why not give people taxbreaks for investing in business solutions that would provide the actual SERVICES to the public, especially to disabled vets or elderly and people who would be assisted to move OFF the welfare rolls and become independent?

Why am I being asked to pay fines into a govt that won't fix problems with dependency
and poverty, where this money is being "taken away" from solutions that could?

here are the sustainable govt reform plans that the Democrats wouldn't fund
because they are too busy raising and spending millions on their campaign funds:
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

I posted this on a thread with a POLL Will You Sign this Petition

But even on this forum, teh debates are focused on constitutional arguments
trying to educate people on teh problems with the bill, instead of focusing
on the SOLUTIONS! that are even coming out of Sheila Jackson Lee's district!
Solutions right under the nose of Democrat leaders, where they instead
sided and funded developers to demolish this national historic district
of Freed Slave churches and Civil Rights history where the Democrat
constituents there developed plans for restoring this district as a sustainable
campus to reform govt and welfare so that poor people could become independent.
Censored by govt using taxpayers money under Democrat administration!

 

[Spoonman]

Well they said they wanted to do this..

And it's done.

Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

Obama and Reid wanted the shutdown because they think it will hurt Republicans in the polls.

They wants the Republicans to lose the House in 2014 so that Obama can go back to having a Congress which does what he wants just because of who he is, since he can't get it to happen based on leadership skills. Meanwhile he'll continue the Imperial President shtick, doing things like selectively exempting whoever he feels like from O-care based on whatever he thinks will best serve his political needs.

absolutely. the democrats are campaigning for the midterm elections at the expense of the american people. look at all the media hype and spin that has been going on for months leading up to this. this is totally orchestrated, totally planned. This never had anything to do with obamacare from a republican perspective. but it is being sold in as an attempt to shut it down. what it is about from a republican perspective is reducing spending and eliminating waste.

 

[emilynghiem]

They are asking for a year, not to be reasonable, but to kill it.

Reasonable would be to allow implementation, look for defects and make corrections.

That's how these things work.

Why not allow implementation by choice not by force?
Paul and many citizens have called for the people voting for it to be under it.
So why not implement it to the same degree that the supporters support it?
And if they choose to opt out and exempt themselves,
then allow the same freedom for all citizens to choose to participate or
to change it where they would choose later? If the President and others have this choice?
Why not?

What force?

They can "opt out" and pay a nominal tax.

One that isn't even enforced.

That's taxation without representation.
They didn't agree to pay the tax. Get it?

That's like prolife people passing a federal policy forcing
people to pay an extra fine or tax for wanting the choice of abortion.
While people who "don't mind giving up this choice" don't pay that fine or tax.
That's like discrimination on the basis of religion.

Why are you punishing people with a tax
for not believing in giving authority to federal govt
that should be reserved to citizens or states?

What's wrong with wanting the CHOICE of covering health care "BESIDES" insurance?
Where are the equal options and tax breaks for investing directly into service programs?

Why not give tax breaks for setting a vet housing or teaching hospital system
that people DO believe in?

What if I believe in spiritual healing as reducing costs of crime and health care
so everyone can be covered. But my money can't go there, it has to pay a tax
into a govt system that CANNOT offer spiritual healing as part of mental and medical care?

NOTE: I am working two jobs, like a slave, to promote sustainable plans which WOULD provide low cost health care as well as housing, jobs and educational internships
combined as a community campus to reform the welfare and govt system.

But people are too busy fighting the unconstitutionality of this bill
to invest their money into saving this historic district that COULD be used as
a model and alternative to health care, funded and developed as private school
or business or as a government reform program that is optional to fund.

Why not give people taxbreaks for investing in business solutions that would provide the actual SERVICES to the public, especially to disabled vets or elderly and people who would be assisted to move OFF the welfare rolls and become independent?

Why am I being asked to pay fines into a govt that won't fix problems with dependency
and poverty, where this money is being "taken away" from solutions that could?

here are the sustainable govt reform plans that the Democrats wouldn't fund
because they are too busy raising and spending millions on their campaign funds:
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

I posted this on a thread with a POLL Will You Sign this Petition

But even on this forum, teh debates are focused on constitutional arguments
trying to educate people on teh problems with the bill, instead of focusing
on the SOLUTIONS! that are even coming out of Sheila Jackson Lee's district!
Solutions right under the nose of Democrat leaders, where they instead
sided and funded developers to demolish this national historic district
of Freed Slave churches and Civil Rights history where the Democrat
constituents there developed plans for restoring this district as a sustainable
campus to reform govt and welfare so that poor people could become independent.
Censored by govt using taxpayers money under Democrat administration!

so WHERE is the "equal option" to invest money HERE
INSTEAD of insurance which doesn't provide services,
and instead of paying a tax or fine to govt that
people like me DIDN'T AGREE TO PAY!!!

 

[Mertex]

You know, I must be the odd man out when it comes to conservatives. I've read on here that my bible should be anything authored by Ann Rand (not sure of the spelling) and my priest (an analogy) should be Grover Norquist. I've heard both names bandied about by those on the left and I have to be honest... I have NEVER read anything by either and couldn't give you one thing that either supposedly believed or said. Actually, I have to admit that I don't give a chicken feather what either one says or doesn't say.

Obamacare is probably the WORST piece of legislation in the last 75 to 100 years. One of the attempts to force Congress to abide by Obamacare will not be voted on in the Senate because Harry won't let it come to the floor. The amount and who has the exemptions is a list of Democratic political butt buddies that is a national disgrace.

That's what Republicans said about Medicare, and I bet you probably use Medicare.

Barry and his minions have stated that they will not negotiate. Every President since Johnson has sat down with the Congress to hammer out a deal, but not this one.

Why should he - GOP says "my way or the highway" - Obama is right in telling them to go procreate with themselves.

Government shut down? Hey, the EPA and Agricultural department can't come to the ranch and stick their finger in my business? Damn, I'm so upset about that.

Yeah, give you an opportunity to cheat your workers, over work them and not give a damn about their safety. So conservative of you.

 

[Amelia]

<snipped>

here are the sustainable govt reform plans that the Democrats wouldn't fund
because they are too busy raising and spending millions on their campaign funds:
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

I posted this on a thread with a POLL Will You Sign this Petition

<snipped>

Can't sign. Just in case anyone missed the partial gov't shut down they're pretending it stops people from filling out online forms.

Due to Congress&#8217;s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, We the People has been temporarily disabled.

 

[emilynghiem]

<snipped>

here are the sustainable govt reform plans that the Democrats wouldn't fund
because they are too busy raising and spending millions on their campaign funds:
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

I posted this on a thread with a POLL Will You Sign this Petition

<snipped>

Can't sign. Just in case anyone missed the partial gov't shut down they're pretending it stops people from filling out online forms.

Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, We the People has been temporarily disabled.

Was Change.org affected? Is that why the petition only has 2 signatures (only needs 100)

http://www.change.org/petitions/u-s...s-for-one-year-to-prevent-government-shutdown

 

[Amelia]

Thanks for the link. I was at the White House petition site.

 

[Missourian]

The government expanded during Reagan who tripled the national debt and saw another expansion under Bush 2 who doubled the national debt.

 

[Mertex]

Well, here's one to stop the nonsense. Enough of this obstructionism.

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-petition-to-fight-gop-obstructionism-in-the-u-s-congress

 

[Sallow]

Why not allow implementation by choice not by force?
Paul and many citizens have called for the people voting for it to be under it.
So why not implement it to the same degree that the supporters support it?
And if they choose to opt out and exempt themselves,
then allow the same freedom for all citizens to choose to participate or
to change it where they would choose later? If the President and others have this choice?
Why not?

What force?

They can "opt out" and pay a nominal tax.

One that isn't even enforced.

That's taxation without representation.
They didn't agree to pay the tax. Get it?

If you're prochoice, that's like prolife people passing a policy
forcing people to pay fine or tax if they want the choice of abortion.
While people who don't mind giving up this choice don't have to pay a fine or tax.

What if people want some OTHER CHOICE to cover health care "BESIDES" INSURANCE?
Why is that being fined or taxed? Why not REWARD people for setting up better systems?

Why are you punishing people with a tax
for not believing in giving authority to federal govt
that should be reserved to citizens or states?

Why not give tax breaks for setting a vet housing or teaching hospital system
that people DO believe in?

What if I believe in spiritual healing as reducing costs of crime and health care
so everyone can be covered. But my money can't go there, it has to pay a tax
into a govt system that CANNOT offer spiritual healing as part of mental and medical care?

NOTE: I am working two jobs, like a slave, to promote sustainable plans which WOULD provide low cost health care as well as housing, jobs and educational internships
combined as a community campus to reform the welfare and govt system.

But people are too busy fighting the unconstitutionality of this bill
to invest their money into saving this historic district that COULD be used as
a model and alternative to health care, funded and developed as private school
or business or as a government reform program that is optional to fund.

Why not give people taxbreaks for investing in business solutions that would provide the actual SERVICES to the public, especially to disabled vets or elderly and people who would be assisted to move OFF the welfare rolls and become independent?

Why am I being asked to pay fines into a govt that won't fix problems with dependency
and poverty, where this money is being "taken away" from solutions that could?

here are the sustainable govt reform plans that the Democrats wouldn't fund
because they are too busy raising and spending millions on their campaign funds:
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

I posted this on a thread with a POLL Will You Sign this Petition

But even on this forum, teh debates are focused on constitutional arguments
trying to educate people on teh problems with the bill, instead of focusing
on the SOLUTIONS! that are even coming out of Sheila Jackson Lee's district!
Solutions right under the nose of Democrat leaders, where they instead
sided and funded developers to demolish this national historic district
of Freed Slave churches and Civil Rights history where the Democrat
constituents there developed plans for restoring this district as a sustainable
campus to reform govt and welfare so that poor people could become independent.
Censored by govt using taxpayers money under Democrat administration!

Wait what?

When did that happen?

 

[emilynghiem]

What force?

They can "opt out" and pay a nominal tax.

One that isn't even enforced.

That's taxation without representation.
They didn't agree to pay the tax. Get it?

....

Wait what?

When did that happen?

I don't get it either.

The ACA was passed through Congress claiming it WASN'T "a tax."
Then the Supreme Court ruled on it as constitutional because the
lawyers argued it WAS "a tax."

Either way, the opponents did NOT agree to pay
"fines or penalties" (enforced by law as a "tax"?)
for believing in "other choices for health care besides
being required to buy insurance" under federal mandates
outside Constitutional limits on government.

I am prochoice and don't believe in this kind of imposition
on principle. I believe this is the very epitomy of "anti-choice"
and fail to understand why so many prochoice liberals justify it
while blaming prolife advocates for excluding "free choice."

If the same "prochoice" people defend to the nth
the right to CHOOSE the option of abortion free of penalty or punishment,
when this "choice" is clearly risky if not medically proven to be dangerous or damaging to health,
and people are NOT FORCED to "choose birth" by law or else face penalty

then why not respect the FREE CHOICE to
buy insurance or invest in "other ways" of covering health care without penalty?
Why compel the "choice" of having to buy insurance or pay an extra fine/tax to the govt?
As if those are the only two choices?

Sorry I don't get this Sallow
If you can please explain, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Missourian]

The last government shutdown gave us the much touted "Clinton" Surplus.

How quickly we forget.

 

[Sallow]

That's taxation without representation.
They didn't agree to pay the tax. Get it?

....

Wait what?

When did that happen?

I don't get it either.

The ACA was passed through Congress claiming it WASN'T "a tax."
Then the Supreme Court ruled on it as constitutional because the
lawyers argued it WAS "a tax."

Either way, the opponents did NOT agree to pay
"fines or penalties" (enforced by law as a "tax"?)
for believing in "other choices for health care besides
being required to buy insurance" under federal mandates
outside Constitutional limits on government.

I am prochoice and don't believe in this kind of imposition
on principle. I believe this is the very epitomy of "anti-choice"
and fail to understand why so many prochoice liberals justify it
while blaming prolife advocates for excluding "free choice."

If the same "prochoice" people defend to the nth
the right to CHOOSE the option of abortion free of penalty or punishment,
when this "choice" is clearly risky if not proven dangerous or damaging to health,
and people are NOT FORCED to "choose birth" by law

then why not respect the FREE CHOICE to
buy insurance or invest in other ways of covering health care
Why compel the "choice" of having to buy insurance or pay an extra fine/tax to the govt?

Sorry I don't get this Sallow
If you can please explain, I'd appreciate it.

It's kind of a question of Semantics.

The provision to pay a penalty was always in the bill.

Personally? While I think this law is better than nothing, I would have preferred the single payer option or Medicare for all.

This is the Republican plan with Democratic provisions to keep the insurers on the up and up.

 

[Zoom-boing]

That's taxation without representation.
They didn't agree to pay the tax. Get it?

....

Wait what?

When did that happen?

I don't get it either.

The ACA was passed through Congress claiming it WASN'T "a tax."
Then the Supreme Court ruled on it as constitutional because the
lawyers argued it WAS "a tax."

Either way, the opponents did NOT agree to pay
"fines or penalties" (enforced by law as a "tax"?)
for believing in "other choices for health care besides
being required to buy insurance" under federal mandates
outside Constitutional limits on government.

I am prochoice and don't believe in this kind of imposition
on principle. I believe this is the very epitomy of "anti-choice"
and fail to understand why so many prochoice liberals justify it
while blaming prolife advocates for excluding "free choice."

If the same "prochoice" people defend to the nth
the right to CHOOSE the option of abortion free of penalty or punishment,
when this "choice" is clearly risky if not medically proven to be dangerous or damaging to health,
and people are NOT FORCED to "choose birth" by law or else face penalty

then why not respect the FREE CHOICE to
buy insurance or invest in "other ways" of covering health care without penalty?
Why compel the "choice" of having to buy insurance or pay an extra fine/tax to the govt?
As if those are the only two choices?

Sorry I don't get this Sallow
If you can please explain, I'd appreciate it.

They are only pro-choice when they approve of the choices.