Poor Republicans, they feel no authorship. Well too bad because the bill was passed at a time that the Democrats has the electoral authority to do it without Republican support. Maybe if the Republicans had not destroyed the economy so badly in 08 they would have been able to stop it.
Other democratic countries like Canada regularily have legislation passed with not a single opposing member voting for it. If it is so important that at least one member of the opposing party supports every bill why is this not written into the constitution. If a bill passes it passes - end of story.
The message for Republicans: get the electoral authority to repeal Obamacare and then do it.
Yes, if the Republicans actually brought something to the table. Like say - we Republicans will remove some of the Bush Tax cuts in exchange for delaying the individual mandate. A tit for tat, like any real negotiation.
Bullshit. I don’t believe for a second that you actually think this is equivalent.
So in your mind, in a hostage situation, the police hostage negotiator is equally to blame for keeping the hostages hostage? Because he wants his way too? (where his way is that the hostages get to go home safe and noone dies). Do you also see the same equivalence here? That if the hostage negotiator only would give in to the hostage taker and let him go, then everyone would be ok, so the police negotiator is also equally causing the situation? Is that how you really see this? If so, its pretty twisted to think that way.
What **Elvis1ives **noted, and I should say that the offer to negotiate after the gun is not pointed at their heads is a good offer. It is like advising the Republicans to stop stalling and prevent the ship from running into the rocks.
Wrong reasoning, unsurprisingly. Its popularity will only be cemented if your side’s constant lying and obstruction and vandalism attempts can be overcome by the actual experience of the people who can now be helped by it - the ones who are signing up by the millions, and don’t feel kindly toward the people trying to stop them.
That the real human pain of our current system will continue unnecessarily and uselessly for another year, at the end of which you’ll *still *play the same fucking stupid game, won’t you?
What the Republicans are afraid of is pretty damn obvious, isn’t it?
They are free to do whatever they’d like. But once you start putting in more stuff you start to lose some votes of your own party. What we have here is pretty clean. They’re agreeing to fund the whole government and are just asking for a year’s delay on the individual mandate. Obama has changed the law himself (probably unconstitutionally), so the the notion that the Reps are asking him to sacrifice his first born are ridiculous. He created this problem the same way he did with Syria, by opening his big yap and uttering “red line” and “I will not negotiate”. If he hadn’t done that, Syria wouldn’t have been as big a problem for him and he probably would have sat down to negotiate by now. But the fact that he talked tough on Syria and became a laughing stock has forced him to dig his heels in all the more now. Time for him to actually man up and do the right thing and negotiate. I’ll even send him a tin badge that says “Official Tough Guy”, if it will help.
Ahem. If all these millions have such a positive experience with it, then you’d sweep the country! Face it, you don’t know how well it will go. You just think it should and want it to. But you’'re not willing to wait and see how it works in the real world. And keep in mind, the law as passed was—in fact—flawed. Obama has even changed it himself. The cost estimates by the CBO have almost doubled. So, I fully understand why you’d be afraid to delay anything. Reality might get in the way of your utopian dream.
No. They’re happy to wait and see how it does. Right now we have a law in constant flux with only guesses as to how much it will help or hurt the country. Funny that you’re so confident about the positive effects of the law yet so reluctant to let the law in practice determine if it’s good or bad and in what ways.
Only if those who “take over” have no connection to voting for the shutdown or against the upcoming debt limit increase and then capitulating like Democrats’ little bitches.
Meaning you want all the current Republican congressmen to commit political suicide. Guess what - they really don’t wanna.
To quote someone else, this isn’t a damn game. What I’m afraid of is twofold:
that our country will be taken over by, in Terr’s words (roughly paraphrased), the puppy-killing extortionists in the Tea Party; and
that removing the individual mandate will cause important, if flawed, HC reform to unravel.
There are real consequences, not just seats to gain or lose in the House.
It’s ridiculous to compare the individual mandate to the corporate requirements, by the way. They are not remotely equivalent, even if they sound like they are. The pro-shutdown Republicans are the masters of false equivalences.
I don’t know. One problem is that it would be hard to hold anyone accountable. There are too many items in the bill you suggest to understand what people are voting for or against. And THAT is extremely unhelpful in a democracy. At the very least we should know what our representatives believe and their level of conviction. That is not a problem with the bills the house sent to the Senate. It’s a simple and small concession to delay one aspect of Obamacare for one year.
More insane bullshit. If they capitulate ON THIS FUCKING HORRIBLE TACTIC, but stand their ground ON THEIR PRINCIPLES, then they’ll just be back to square one, which is negotiating like a decent human being instead of like a puppy-killing extortionist.
The only thing they’ll “capitulate” on like little bitches (love the misogyny–you’re really terrified that they’ll grow boobies, aren’t you?) is the ability to extort concessions by holding a gun to the puppy. And they should lose that. They’ll still be able to gain concessions by offering concessions of their own, like any decent human being would do.
Exactly–they’re asking for a CLEAN, by which you mean “none of their conditions attached,” CR. In other words, they’re asking for NOTHING except for congress to do its job.
If doing their job is an exclusively Democratic aim, then Republicans SHOULD lose all power forever.
That seems like fairly good ground for suggesting that Obama’s legacy is more on the mind of, at least, those pundits, than his. Yours too. Apparently now mine.