If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   GOP's new plan, in lieu of passing a CR, is to pass small, individual bills funding one program at a time, and they just won't pass one for Obamacare   (politico.com) divider line 381
    More: Followup, House GOP, obamacare, GOP, White House, Senate, farm bills, House Majority Leader, House Republican Conference  
•       •       •

2365 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2013 at 3:22 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



381 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-01 04:08:39 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

Problem: Obamacare is already funded through mandatory spending.

Why do you see that as a problem?

It's a problem with the GOP's plan. I didn't say it was a problem for me.

Looks like we're making progress here.  You would urge Harry Reid to accept this approach and approve any piecemeal funding bills that come from the house, to fund as much of government as possible.


Sure. Or they could just pass them all at once in some sort of continuing resolution. Why take longer and do it separately?
 
2013-10-01 04:08:44 PM

Vanis: You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.


The problem is that a solid 30% or so of the US population doesn't believe in a social contract.
 
2013-10-01 04:08:59 PM

David Stockton, formerly of the Fed, estimates a shutdown costs 0.15 percent of GDP growth a week.

- Annie Lowrey (@AnnieLowrey) October 1, 2013


I'm sure this will help with the dreaded economic uncertainty Republicans seem to be so concerned about.
 
2013-10-01 04:09:01 PM
 
2013-10-01 04:09:59 PM

Deneb81: And when each comes back with a portion of funding for the missing Obamacare funds, Boehner should push that!

It's compromise!


We've got a reasonable proposal for ending Harry Reid's shutdown on the table, but it looks like some of you just don't want it to end.  The National Parks shouldn't be the battleground for Obamacare.  We should fund those things that we agree should get funding, and confine the battle only to those things in controversy.
 
2013-10-01 04:11:10 PM

SkinnyHead: We should fund those things that we agree should get funding, and confine the battle only to those things in controversy.


So then you support a clean CR then.
 
2013-10-01 04:11:45 PM
Whoops. I said then twice. I like then.
 
2013-10-01 04:12:34 PM
Before this gets too deep into "hey! neat idea to trim fat from the budget"?

Try to remember that a continuing resolution is to cover what is considered "agreed to" items for a "temporary" period of time - the GOP seems to be aiming at a mere 6 weeks.

The time to turn the budget inside out, item by item, is during the budget year

If they really want to break this into portions, then they can give up every 4 day weekend, month long holiday and 8 week session break for the duration - with no staff to help them read the hard parts,
 
2013-10-01 04:12:55 PM
 
2013-10-01 04:13:28 PM

sdd2000: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

WHAT PORTION OF "OBAMACARE  ALREADY IS FUNDED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?


The Obamacare, the already, and the funded part most likely.


Why is skinnyhead refusing to negotiate with me in good faith for the 2 years of total fark that he owes me in one month bits.


----

So let me get this straight. The GOP is willing to find the government, but only if they do it as slowly as possible, one item at a time.
 
2013-10-01 04:13:30 PM
I misread that as "God's new plan" and yet it didn't affect my comprehension
 
2013-10-01 04:14:18 PM

Vanis: You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.


Nope.

Remember, members from one party in particular like to claim they 'never signed a social contract.'
 
2013-10-01 04:14:28 PM

DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.


The individual bills have nothing to do with Obamacare.  There are two goals:

1. Attempt to fund really popular things like the DC parks/monuments so you don't keep seeing pictures of said parks and monuments with giant closed signs in front of them.

2. Get the Senate (and House Dems) to vote against said bills in order to allow Republicans to say, "See, they hate (object of bill in question)."  And the Senate will kill each bill for the same reason they won't go to conference....it's (rightly) clean CR or bust.

This isn't an attempt to solve the current situation.  It's just a a PR move.  It's also a really bad one since the Senate can simply do the same thing in return....like going through the cuts in the sequester and voting to remove them and then having the House shoot them down.  But then again you're talking about a GOP leadership group that probably has to be reminded to take off their pants before they take a dump.
 
ecl
2013-10-01 04:14:57 PM

ModernPrimitive01: OhioUGrad: the repeated use of the word piecemeal in this thread has made me hungry for chicken

I heard under Obamacare we will no longer be allowed to eat fried chicken. Only broccoli


I heard under Obamacare we will only be allowed three sheets of TP to wipe with.  Thanks Obama.
 
2013-10-01 04:15:06 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: Rann Xerox: That poor, poor chicken.

I think it's more like chicken pate by now.
[simplevegetarianrecipe.com image 288x234]



It's more like a pile of bloody feathers in the middle of a mixed-martial arts cage wearing an MMA glove, covered in GOP jizz and tapping out faster than Savion Glover hooked up to a Die-Hard car battery.
 
2013-10-01 04:15:25 PM

TheOtherGuy: At what point is it appropriate and necessary to define both the GOP and Tea Party as terrorist organizations, lock everybody up until and unless they promise to both act like freakin' adults and do their sworn duty as elected officials?  I mean, they've now done demonstrable harm to the United States, in terms of dollars, in terms of human cost.  What, exactly makes them not enemies of the state at this point?  They're organized, and seeking to affect the functioning of the state in an adversarial way by sowing chaos.

They're not objecting and trying to change or even overthrow a corrupt, incompetent, or tyrannical government.   They're trying to TAKE OVER and install their own corrupt, incompetent, and tyrannical government.

Before you all rip into me, I'd rather not do this.  Really.  Everyone, elected or otherwise, has the right to disagree with the government and seek redress of grievances.  This is so not that.  It is abuse of political power to affect discord and destruction.  If it's not a crime, it bloody well ought to be.

I'm not an idiot.  I know this won't affect the majority of citizens in any significant way, at least not in the short term - which is probably the point they want to prove.  It's the precedent that bothers me.  Next time the blackmail may kill something more significant to the nation than park rangers' jobs.  Never mind the fact that it matters to you if you're a ranger...


Actually, no. They were elected by the people, and were given authority by the constitution to control the purse. So, to paraphrase Obama's own words, the people have spoken.
 
2013-10-01 04:16:32 PM

acchief: Actually, no. They were elected by the people, and were given authority by the constitution to control the purse. So, to paraphrase Obama's own words, the people have spoken.


Actually only 70 congressmen are holding the Congress hostage. That's nowhere near a majority of any people.
 
2013-10-01 04:16:54 PM

DamnYankees: This is exactly right, but again, it makes no sense. This isn't a "trick". The Democrats are willing to fund all of this. If they are going to do it piecemeal, just do it all at once. What's the point otherwise? There's nothing the Dems want funded in the CR that the Reps don't.


Because this way they get either:

A: The piecemeal funding items get passed and the government shutdown is, in the short term, relatively painless to most Americans so the GOP will get minimal negative backlash.

B: The Democrats refuse to govern like children and don't go along with this idiotic plan, which the GOP will use to frame the Democrats as the cause and continuation of the shutdown.
 
2013-10-01 04:17:03 PM

ConcernTroll: Harry Reid's shutdown


img.fark.net
 
2013-10-01 04:17:34 PM

Deneb81: Vanis: You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.

The problem is that a solid 30% or so of the US population doesn't believe in a social contract.


Heh, beat me to it.
 
2013-10-01 04:18:01 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: David Stockton, formerly of the Fed, estimates a shutdown costs 0.15 percent of GDP growth a week.- Annie Lowrey (@AnnieLowrey) October 1, 2013

I'm sure this will help with the dreaded economic uncertainty Republicans seem to be so concerned about.


Wow, that's alot. Scary almost even.
(0.15% => a factor of 0.0015 in growth)

Yeah, really scary.
 
2013-10-01 04:18:23 PM

Shrugging Atlas: 2. Get the Senate (and House Dems) to vote against said bills in order to allow Republicans to say, "See, they hate (object of bill in question)."  And the Senate will kill each bill for the same reason they won't go to conference....it's (rightly) clean CR or bust.


I'm not sure I agree with this. Seems to me the Senate would pass these bills - they want this stuff funded also. They passed the Pay the Military Act, right? Has Reid announced he'll reject these smaller bills?
 
2013-10-01 04:18:48 PM

Kuroshin: Nope.

Remember, members from one party in particular like to claim they 'never signed a social contract.'


"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

-Benjamin HUSSEIN Franklin
 
2013-10-01 04:18:58 PM
acchief -  ok - your assertion "they were elected by the people...to control the purse"

                they aren't doing that - the shut down will cost 2-9 BILLION and a program-by-program approval approach will take long enough to put people out on the streets

               Did you vote for 800,000 unemployed and more debt?
 
2013-10-01 04:19:18 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The Senate should return each individual funding bill back to the senate with a rider that would eliminate the need for a debt ceiling vote.


Better yet, insert the Presidents 2013 budget in toto as a rider, and increase the top tax bracket to 89%.
 
2013-10-01 04:19:32 PM

Target Builder: A: The piecemeal funding items get passed and the government shutdown is, in the short term, relatively painless to most Americans so the GOP will get minimal negative backlash.


But how is this good for them. The GOP needs the shutdown to be painful! That's the whole plan! Shut the government down which forces the Dems to defund Obamacare. If the shutdown isn't painful, they lose leverage over the Dems.
 
2013-10-01 04:19:38 PM

Heliovdrake: SKINNYHEAD,


You will buy me 2 years of total fark, but I want them in individual 1 month bits.


YOU HAVE UNTIL 6PM TODAY TO COMPLY!

//Its so sad that SkinnyHead is the best troll Ive seen in weeks.


You know he's a democrat false-flagger, right?
 
2013-10-01 04:20:45 PM
If passing a CR piecemeal gets them off the hook with their extreme constituents, I don't see a problem with it. Let them do it, then they can herp out some derps about how "we didn't fund Obamacare". Your average teaparty member is not going to know the difference, and that's that. Besides, they still have the hostage for the upcoming debt limit even if they just broke down and passed a clean CR, what's the difference.
 
2013-10-01 04:20:58 PM

acchief: Wow, that's alot. Scary almost even.
(0.15% => a factor of 0.0015 in growth)

Yeah, really scary.


Stupid, not scary. Unnecessary, self-inflicted, and stupid.
 
2013-10-01 04:21:20 PM

elchip: Kuroshin: Nope.

Remember, members from one party in particular like to claim they 'never signed a social contract.'

"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

-Benjamin HUSSEIN Franklin


COMMIE LIBTARD MUSLIN ATHEIST!!!!
 
2013-10-01 04:21:28 PM

Kuroshin: Vanis: You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.

Nope.

Remember, members from one party in particular like to claim they 'never signed a social contract.'


Oh really? I must have missed that talking point. Damnit!

With all due respect to Mr. Gilligan the best drama you're exporting right now is that show on CSpan.
 
2013-10-01 04:21:28 PM

DamnYankees: Shrugging Atlas: 2. Get the Senate (and House Dems) to vote against said bills in order to allow Republicans to say, "See, they hate (object of bill in question)."  And the Senate will kill each bill for the same reason they won't go to conference....it's (rightly) clean CR or bust.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Seems to me the Senate would pass these bills - they want this stuff funded also. They passed the Pay the Military Act, right? Has Reid announced he'll reject these smaller bills?


The GoP seems to think it puts the Democrats in a tight spot. In the interview I heard the Senator was talking about how Reid doesn't want to fund the parks but he can't dare vote against it.

I must be missing something, unless the CRs aren't clean I am pretty sure the Dems will be happy to pass them.
 
2013-10-01 04:21:38 PM
Let's see if I get the logic of this. Government shutting down is bad. It's so bad that we think we can pressure the President and the Senate into giving us a bunch of stuff we want and they don't. But let's make it less bad by passing a bunch of stuff. That'll pressure them into giving into our demands!


Wow. This is hitherto unknown levels of dumb.
 
2013-10-01 04:22:40 PM

DamnYankees: Target Builder: A: The piecemeal funding items get passed and the government shutdown is, in the short term, relatively painless to most Americans so the GOP will get minimal negative backlash.

But how is this good for them. The GOP needs the shutdown to be painful! That's the whole plan! Shut the government down which forces the Dems to defund Obamacare. If the shutdown isn't painful, they lose leverage over the Dems.


I still can't wrap my head around that one...
 
2013-10-01 04:23:06 PM

Deneb81: The problem is that a solid 30% or so of the US population doesn't believe in a social contract.


It's 27%

The same 27% that said in a poll today that shutting down the government is "a good idea"
 
2013-10-01 04:23:37 PM

skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.


I read the headline and had to think about reasons why that wouldn't work... didn't realize this is the reason until I started reading the thread. How obviously retarded.
 
2013-10-01 04:23:46 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: I think it's more like chicken pate by now.


Could that be...warm chicken pate?

/Ted Cruz will be in his bunk.
 
2013-10-01 04:23:58 PM

Kuroshin: I still can't wrap my head around that one...


I mean, it sort of makes sense - it's a pretty simple hostage scenario. They're plan is to hope the Dems blink first. Now, I don't think it will work, but at least it makes sense in theory if you buy into the GOP's assumptions. The "splitting up the CR into multiple votes" just doesn't make any sense at all.
 
2013-10-01 04:24:08 PM

Vanis: Kuroshin: Vanis: You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.

Nope.

Remember, members from one party in particular like to claim they 'never signed a social contract.'

Oh really? I must have missed that talking point. Damnit!

With all due respect to Mr. Gilligan the best drama you're exporting right now is that show on CSpan.


It was back during the budget debate (around the same time OWS started up).

In the GOP, apparently every man is an island.
 
2013-10-01 04:24:51 PM

DamnYankees: Shrugging Atlas: 2. Get the Senate (and House Dems) to vote against said bills in order to allow Republicans to say, "See, they hate (object of bill in question)."  And the Senate will kill each bill for the same reason they won't go to conference....it's (rightly) clean CR or bust.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Seems to me the Senate would pass these bills - they want this stuff funded also. They passed the Pay the Military Act, right? Has Reid announced he'll reject these smaller bills?


Reid hasn't said anything either way since this entire thing isn't official (that I'm aware of), but the military thing is a complete no-brainer.  Nobody can argue it's a good idea to not pay an extremely well armed group of people that are also currently fighting overseas in some cases.

Agreeing to ensure National Security isn't impacted is vastly different from agreeing to Republican efforts to fund the DC Memorials so they can have the horrible optics of tourists being turned away off the evening news.
 
2013-10-01 04:25:06 PM
DeaH:
Let's see if I get the logic of this. Government shutting down is bad. It's so bad that we think we can pressure the President and the Senate into giving us a bunch of stuff we want and they don't. But let's make it less bad by passing a bunch of stuff. That'll pressure them into giving into our demands!


On the other hand? Not funding some stuff (say, HeadStart or WIC?) will merely "prove" these programs are a waste of money - after all? it didn't really impact you, did it?  The talking point writes itself.
 
2013-10-01 04:26:06 PM

KarmicDisaster: If passing a CR piecemeal gets them off the hook with their extreme constituents, I don't see a problem with it. Let them do it, then they can herp out some derps about how "we didn't fund Obamacare". Your average teaparty member is not going to know the difference, and that's that. Besides, they still have the hostage for the upcoming debt limit even if they just broke down and passed a clean CR, what's the difference.


If you think they will put out CR's to cover the entire budget, you're delusional. It will cover ideologically conservative favorites only.
 
2013-10-01 04:26:43 PM

Kuroshin: DamnYankees: Target Builder: A: The piecemeal funding items get passed and the government shutdown is, in the short term, relatively painless to most Americans so the GOP will get minimal negative backlash.

But how is this good for them. The GOP needs the shutdown to be painful! That's the whole plan! Shut the government down which forces the Dems to defund Obamacare. If the shutdown isn't painful, they lose leverage over the Dems.

I still can't wrap my head around that one...


They (a small fraction of the GoP) believed that the Dems would flinch first if there was a government shutdown and agree to pass the CRs with the addition of delaying the individual mandate for one year. They also believed, against every indicator to the contrary, that they could spin the shutdown as being the Left's fault.

They were wrong on many levels.
 
2013-10-01 04:27:14 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Nobody can argue it's a good idea to not pay an extremely well armed group of people that are also currently fighting overseas in some cases.


May not be a good idea but you could argue it's not terribly fair. Plenty of civilian federal employees who have their own financial responsibilities and mouths to feed. Prioritizing one set over the other is kind of a dick move -- though I get why R, D, and President got that through quickly.
 
2013-10-01 04:27:20 PM

DamnYankees: Kuroshin: I still can't wrap my head around that one...

I mean, it sort of makes sense - it's a pretty simple hostage scenario. They're plan is to hope the Dems blink first. Now, I don't think it will work, but at least it makes sense in theory if you buy into the GOP's assumptions. The "splitting up the CR into multiple votes" just doesn't make any sense at all.


But one of these things doesn't lead to the other, by any logical path at least.  I mean, if the assets of the ACA weren't already guaranteed funding, then I could see the logic because shutting down the .gov would actually directly affect the ACA.

But this?  This just doesn't compute.  Especially now, like you said, with their new strategy of passing bits and pieces through.  Unless every piece contains language to de-fund the ACA...

But that is just doing the same thing as before, in an even less-efficient manner.
 
2013-10-01 04:27:21 PM

SkinnyHead: Deneb81: And when each comes back with a portion of funding for the missing Obamacare funds, Boehner should push that!

It's compromise!

We've got a reasonable proposal for ending Harry Reid's shutdown on the table, but it looks like some of you just don't want it to end.  The National Parks shouldn't be the battleground for Obamacare.  We should fund those things that we agree should get funding, and confine the battle only to those things in controversy.


The house has a perfectly reasonable CR from the senate on their table. The time to debate Obamacare is not at every government funding bill, and not 4 years as two elections after it was passed. It may have passed some time during the 42 repeal attempts that the republicans failed to gain support for their agenda.

In alternate - let's also not fund the background checks for gun ownership. The parks should not be the battleground for gun ownership fights.
 
2013-10-01 04:27:28 PM

parasol: acchief -  ok - your assertion "they were elected by the people...to control the purse"

                they aren't doing that - the shut down will cost 2-9 BILLION and a program-by-program approval approach will take long enough to put people out on the streets

               Did you vote for 800,000 unemployed and more debt?


Wait a minute, 800,000 government workers lose their jobs, and government costs go UP? Oh wait, you're using that fuzzy math stuff aren't you? These economists making these statements now are those people who said house prices always go up, and the economy is sound back a few years ago?

Program-by-program is the way it's supposed to be done, and has been done throughout most of our history.
 
2013-10-01 04:28:02 PM

sdd2000: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

WHAT PORTION OF "OBAMACARE  ALREADY IS FUNDED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?


If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.  The House can send piecemeal bills to the Senate one by one.  Military pay?  Does Harry Reid object to that?  No, he already allowed that one.  How about National Parks?  Does Harry Reid object to that?  Let's find out.  We can go through the entire budget that way, funding as much as we can.
 
2013-10-01 04:29:47 PM

Kuroshin: But one of these things doesn't lead to the other, by any logical path at least.  I mean, if the assets of the ACA weren't already guaranteed funding, then I could see the logic because shutting down the .gov would actually directly affect the ACA.

But this?  This just doesn't compute.  Especially now, like you said, with their new strategy of passing bits and pieces through.  Unless every piece contains language to de-fund the ACA...

But that is just doing the same thing as before, in an even less-efficient manner.


No it makes sense. They want the Democrats to actively pass a bill to defund the ACA - they know that shutting down the government doesn't defund it, they just thought that if they shut down the government, Dems would find that so intolerable they would be willing to actively defund the ACA in order to stop it.

Now, you and I agree that's dumb as hell, but at least it's a valid argument. it's not a sound argument, because its premises are false, but its valid. The splitting of the CR argument isn't even valid.
 
2013-10-01 04:30:16 PM
Skinnyhead has yet to reply.


Its clear he is unwilling to negotiate for my 2 years of totalfark.

Why wont he negotiate?

Is he too busy hunting endangered animals (which he doesnt even eat or stuff, he just lets them rot)

Is he too busy stalking, capturing and skinning the homeless?
 
Displayed 50 of 381 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report