Shut 'em Down!

point? who said anything about there having to be a point?

it's chaos! look at it! it's beautiful!

/tears well up

I don't understand one thing. Honestly.

Why weren't liberals upset when Obama unilaterally changed the law four years after it was passed to delay the employer mandate? The excuse was the exchanges weren't ready. This blew a huge whole in our already large deficit for this year. Why then are you so upset when through regular order the House wants to delay the individual mandate for one year? The answer is you like Obama and you are dishonest. If Obama delayed the individual mandate with a stroke of a pen you would have been for it. If the Republicans then wanted to delay the employer mandate you would be against it. Why should Congress be exempt from Obamacare? This is the other issue.

instead of discussing what is actually on the table all I hear is BS about Republicans imaginary motives. Defunding it isn't even on the table now. The only politics I hear all comes from the radical left who desperately wanted a government shutdown. What kind of leader says he will not negotiate. It is illogical. He says on one hand a government shutdown would be so devastating that I won't even negotiate; so instead his answer is for the government to shut down? That makes sense to you? It makes sense only if you think politically.

/srartsafireinanoldoildrum

this should be a good vantage point.

The only question dodging I saw yesterday was Obama wind sprinting away from the podium after his press conference where he spewed lies. Government shutdown so bad, a crisis so serious he cannot even take one question? He knows their position is so pathetic it can withstand zero scrutiny.

Thats because Boehner spoke after your bedtime.

If you didn't know, because congress fell under obamacare, they passed a special subsidy/law giving them and their staffs entirely different treatment than the rest of us. Republicans in the house even tried last night to pass a CR version that funded obamacare entirely but just removed the specific overwhelming subsidy for congress and their staff.

It did not pass the senate. Who's being unreasonable here?

Edit: As a point of order here, Amandarius, they aren't "exempt" from the law, they just get entirely different & special treatment.

because there is no legitimate reason to delay it further, and that has NOTHING to do with paying our damn bills.

“We’re very excited,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). “It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.”
“It’s wonderful,” said Rep. John Abney Culberson (R-Tex.), clapping his hands to emphasize the point. “We’re 100 percent united!”

This is not regular order. This is hostage taking. If they wanted to delay the implementation, they should have voted on the clean bill like the Democrats and the non-HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE Republicans wanted.

They will get the blame for this as history shows that polls are never kind to the side that incites a government shutdown... like, ever. This is squarely on the Tea Party Republicans and they're owning it because their lint-brained constituents will keep voting them in anyway.

Liberals actually dislike Obamacare because it didn't go far enough. They wanted single-payer universal healthcare and we got something safely in Republican territory with the ACA. Hardly the socialist panacea being sold to gullible Americans.

If you were to speak to a liberal you'd know this.

lol, typical Tea Partier quote right there, oblivious to facts. 100% united? Then why did Peter King and other moderate Republicans try to stage a revolt last night to pass the clean budget? Open discord, but yeah, 100% united! 100% losing the fight.

Do you have any unbiased sources, or do you need to use the Washington post just to prove a point?

That is like me using Fox News to make a point against Obamacare.

/suppliesacaseofvodkajustincase

looks like we'll need it.

Dual purpose too!

/throwsmolitovcocktail

Hostage taking? As I said before the house offered a CR that offered everything except the differential treatment of congress in regards to obamacare. That was unacceptable to the senate. You look pretty funny stomping your feet and saying "our way or nothing" then calling the other party "hostage takers".

sounds like you understand to me,,,, it's the old dog and pony show.




:D yeah! /eats popcorn

"I cut the deficit in half"
~ Obama 10/1/2013 during 1pm est public speech.

/poke

Do you want a bottle of vodka to toss too?

You can have the single-shot ones since you can't completely indulge. =D

He also said healthcare premiums would lower by 2500 bucks and that everyone could keep their plan and their doctor.

All of which didn't come true.

he gets the airplane size one since his paws are so small!!

The Vitter Amendment in its original interpretation was not differential treatment. It required Congress to obtain coverage on the exchanges like the rest of the peons while providing a subsidy. Then the crazies seized upon it and are using it as a talking point.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/30/vitter_amendment_is_total_bs.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

An amendment that does nothing but effectively cut the pay of staffers. All to appease the ignorance of the Tea Party voting base.

If Obama delayed the employer mandate, then he should have delayed the individual mandate. I think that is a pretty good reason.

all of your arguments are well thought out and well sourced. I appreciate your sincerity...

SORRY

No party is complete without C&C Music Factory!



Now everyone grab your lime green, sequined headbands and /runningman like our malevolent dictator, Obama, has commanded!

Don't forget to cheese that grin until it hurts!

So you think we should drag out implementation of a statute simply because a different statute was delayed? I suppose we should delay every law in the name of fairness... You're insane.

The employer mandate was delayed because it was not feasible to implement it without the infrastructure, the individual mandate's infrastructure was completed on time (aside from the states still symbolically opposing it and the Spanish version). There is no legitimate reason to delay it.

Because liberals can't think for themselves or predict what is going to logically happen. They only have hindsight. This is one-off from single payer and only two moves from checkmate.

1) Get millions of people to buy health insurance through the exchanges. Federal government subsidizes nearly all of your out of pocket cost; lower your income the more the government pays. Government pays for your insurance but it is still an insurance company providing the coverage.

2) After the deficits absolutely balloon from the government paying massive amounts for every individuals health insurance they need to cut costs so they naturally make a rule capping the amount that insurance companies can charge; and everyone is all for it. Shortly after the insurance companies go out of business because they operate at a huge loss. Enter single payer.

yes huh! It stinks and I don't like it! Plus! Things and stuff!

so there

Because the government and private sector aren't already footing the bill for the increased cost of reactionary care vs preventative or the millions that visit emergency rooms annually without insurance and never pay for it. Or maybe the million of people getting Medicaid that would be covered under subsidized care plans that dramatically lessens the cost AND allows the government to make back some of that subsidy by taxing insurance companies on their profits. Shift the burden of capital to the private companies that are equipped to sustain that capital.

When you shift the burden as you call it to the private company they shift the burden to the customers. Unless already out of the box you are implying that the government should cap the amount insurance companies are allowed to charge.