So... Healthcare exchange traffic too high!

Superfreak said:
So now you too are incapable of reading comprehension? So sad.
Click to expand...


And NOW its apparently too big an inconvenience for you to even tell someone who asks politely which post of yours we should check if we want to know what you said, because as you've said before, telling us what you said earlier is just too big an inconvenience for you.
 
Dungheap said:
Maybe you misunderstood the question. Why are unrelated policy issues (defunding Obamacare/delaying the mandate/cutting congressional staff compensation) being tied to funding government operations?
Click to expand...

Because Obamacare is the reason the people swept a GOP majority into control of the House in 2010, like did to oppose Hillarycare in 1994.

It's their raison d'etat.
 
Dungheap said:
That might make some sense on the defunding of Obamacare position on the grounds that they are stopping the ACA from being funded (even though in practice it makes little sense because of how the ACA is funded -- through mandatory appropriations), but they've long since abandoned that position.

And I'm not dipsuting that they have the authority to not fund the government, but that doesn't answer my question. I mean, they have the authority to do nothing at all from the time they are sworn in until Congress recesses for good, but that doesn't explain why they ought to do that. So, why is funding the government at agreed levels (!) being tied to unrelated policy issues.
Click to expand...

I'll type slower, because they are using their position the Constitution has given them as a check and balance. You may not like that they are, but they are. So now we know they have the authority to do something, and that this is the actual way they would exercise it... you and I agree on that. What we don't agree on is whether they "should" be doing that, even though many were elected specifically to do this.

Again, those on the left ignoring that they had their own elections, ran on and were elected to do specific things, is simple pretense.
 
Damocles said:
I'll type slower, because they are using their position the Constitution has given them as a check and balance. You may not like that they are, but they are. So now we know they have the authority to do something, and that this is the actual way they would exercise it... you and I agree on that. What we don't agree on is whether they "should" be doing that, even though many were elected specifically to do this.

Again, ignoring that they had their own elections, ran on and were elected to do specific things, is simple pretense.
Click to expand...


Summing up: because they can. That's just delightful. So basically, you're cool with the House GOP is pulling a "nice government you got here, shame if something were to happen to it . . ." becuase they can.

Remind me. Aren't you the one that had his knickers in a twist about the hostage metaphor?
 
Dungheap said:
Summing up: because they can. That's just delightful. So basically, you're cool with the House GOP is pulling a "nice government you got here, shame if something were to happen to it . . ." becuase they can.

Remind me. Aren't you the one that had his knickers in a twist about the hostage metaphor?
Click to expand...

No... You are again playing the role of the disingenuous.

Summarized: Because this is what they were hired, by their constituents, to do.

I'll say it once more, rewording it again: Pretending that the only election held was the one for Obama is disingenuous and deliberately ignorant.

And no, I simply was the one that pointed out that the only one who threatened anything (a veto) was not the House.
 
Damocles said:
No... You are again playing the role of the disingenuous.

Summarized: Because this is what they were hired to do.
Click to expand...


They were hired to shut down the government unless the Senate agreed to cut Congressional staffer pay? Really? And, I mean, they've tried to get rid of Obamacare, like, eleventy times and failed. And if they were "hired" to do that, what was Obama "re-hired" to do? What was the Senate Democratic majority "hired" to do?

That's a really, really stupid way to look at the role of members of Congress.

I think "because they can" is a lot closer to reality.
 
Dungheap said:
They were hired to shut down the government unless the Senate agreed to cut Congressional staffer pay? Really? And, I mean, they've tried to get rid of Obamacare, like, eleventy times and failed. And if they were "hired" to do that, what was Obama "re-hired" to do? What was the Senate Democratic majority "hired" to do?

That's a really, really stupid way to look at the role of members of Congress.

I think "because they can" is a lot closer to reality.
Click to expand...

Considering they ran specifically on that, yeah. Many of them were hired by their constituents exactly for this. This is their job.
 
So Damocles, I'm assuming you'd be okay then with the tactic if the Democrats were to say they won't reopen the govt unless an assault rifle ban were attached to the bill?
 
Damocles said:
Considering they ran specifically on that, yeah. Many of them were hired by their constituents exactly for this. This is their job.
Click to expand...


They ran specifically on shutting down the government unless the Senate agreed to cut Congressional staffer compensation (that was the penultimate gambit of the House Republicans last night)? Do you have any campaign materials at all reflecting that promise? How many House Republicans does this apply to?

And again, how does it work where nearly 66 million voters re-hired Obama to implement the Affordable Care Act (setting aside the Senate for a moment)?



Postscript: I think you're pretty far untethered from reality here.
 
And Superfreak, post #95 is awaiting your attention. Not calling you out for not responding. Just putting this here as a placeholder so Damo's insanity doesn't bury that post.
 
Dungheap said:
The Democrats already compromised by agreeing to sequestration level spending
Click to expand...

dude....sequestration was the cuts they gave in exchange for the 2011 cap increase.....true, the Dems didn't get around to actually DOING the cut until 2013.......then there was the 2012 cap increase...not only did you not cut spending for that one, you got a big tax increase.......now we're looking at the 2013 cap increase.....and you're offering nothing again......
 
Dungheap said:
They ran specifically on shutting down the government unless the Senate agreed to cut Congressional staffer compensation (that was the penultimate gambit of the House Republicans last night)? Do you have any campaign materials at all reflecting that promise? How many House Republicans does this apply to?

And again, how does it work where nearly 66 million voters re-hired Obama to implement the Affordable Care Act (setting aside the Senate for a moment)?



Postscript: I think you're pretty far untethered from reality here.
Click to expand...
The actions of the House Republicans are okay w Damocles, because they have an "R" next to their name.
 
If both parties acted like the House Republicans are currently acting we would never open the government, until we have a assault weapons ban, free abortion on demand, and zero taxes!
 
Dungheap said:
Your entire premise here is wrong. The Senate passed a budget way in May and then requested 18 times that the House agree to a conference committee to hash out the differences between the budgets passed by the House and Senate. The House Republicans refused each request, only agreeing to confer last night at 11:00 p.m., one hour before the shutdown and without funding the government in the interim period while the conferees did their work.
Click to expand...

you realize of course that claim is bullshit.....no such request was ever passed by the Senate so no such resolution was sent to the House.......Sen. Murray made this claim but the truth is even though the Dems control the Senate they could never muster enough support to make the request......and don't whine about filibusters because a budget resolution can't be filibustered.....
 
Jarod said:
If both parties acted like the House Republicans are currently acting we would never open the government, until we have a assault weapons ban, free abortion on demand, and zero taxes!
Click to expand...

This is just another dullard analogy from the low information buffoons who voted for and defend this incredibly inept President.

Let me try to educate you; both parties don't need to shut down Government when there is leadership.

Here is what this assclown said when Bush was President:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

So was Obama right? Was he just saying this based on being a hyper partisan? Was he a liar? Or is he just an incredible hypocrite who utters things he doesn't believe purely for political gain?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude....sequestration was the cuts they gave in exchange for the 2011 cap increase.....true, the Dems didn't get around to actually DOING the cut until 2013.......then there was the 2012 cap increase...not only did you not cut spending for that one, you got a big tax increase.......now we're looking at the 2013 cap increase.....and you're offering nothing again......
Click to expand...


Dude, the funding levels are agreed. Each party compromised fro the budgets they passed. This isn't really in dispute.
 
Dungheap said:
Dude, the funding levels are agreed. Each party compromised fro the budgets they passed. This isn't really in dispute.
Click to expand...

If this were true we wouldn't be voting on Continuing Resolutions, we'd have a budget and this wouldn't be happening at all.
 
Damocles said:
If this were true we wouldn't be voting on Continuing Resolutions, we'd have a budget and this wouldn't be happening at all.
Click to expand...

You'd think that this wouldn't be happening at all where funding levels are agreed because that's what would happen among sane people. But the House Republicans aren't sane and have tacked on their Obamcare nonsense to the CR and refuse to pass a "clean" CR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top