Does the left not realize that Americans dont want the ACA?

[krazen1211]

Of course they do not care. The fact that photo voter ID is settled law hasn't prevented the screeching.

[krazen1211]

Of course they do not care. The fact that photo voter ID is settled law hasn't prevented the screeching.

hey you know what else is settled law

obamacare

BAM

The theory of settled law, whatever it means, applies to plenty of things. Sequestration is of course settled law.

[krazen1211]

The point was that because there is a Republican House, Obama has to deal with it; he doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever he wants and no amount of Internet screeching will give it to him. Whether the Republicans deserve a House majority is a separate issue; but that it exists is indisputable.

Yes... but considering their 'negotiation' strategy is to ignore what happened in 2012, think 2010 was the jumping off point. It's hard to negotiate with someone when they say "so, unless we get EVERYTHING we want, and at the same time undermine something of yours and oh, you get nothing in return... we're burning the place down"...

'It's hard' is not an excuse to not attempt to govern the country. Let's keep in mind that 2012 was a 'status quo election' that did not shift in any significant way the balance of power elected after 2010.

The point was that because there is a Republican House, Obama has to deal with it; he doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever he wants and no amount of Internet screeching will give it to him. Whether the Republicans deserve a House majority is a separate issue; but that it exists is indisputable.

Your point failed and were shut down, no need to continue rambling, child. That is unless you want to get further read for nonsense, lol.

Wow

Of course they do not care. The fact that photo voter ID is settled law hasn't prevented the screeching.

hey you know what else is settled law

obamacare

BAM

Nothing's really settled until either its proponents or its critics stop being elected to office.
[/quote]

In the case of sequestration, Barry was re-elected. The CR of course represents a massive spending increase over the settled law of Barry's sequestration.

[krazen1211]

What would be the GOP's opinion if in 2007 the Democrats shut the government down until the Bush tax cuts were repealed?

Better yet, what if the Republicans weren't demanding the end of Obamacare but Medicare or Social Security?

The great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 had a built in expiration date.

If Barry agrees to put a built in expiration date on Obamacare of 2019 that would certainly be a valid comparison.

[krazen1211]

Of course they do not care. The fact that photo voter ID is settled law hasn't prevented the screeching.

hey you know what else is settled law

obamacare

BAM

*Cough* Prop 8 *Cough*

DemocracyDemocracyDemocracyDemocracy.


Of course, partisan redistricting has also been upheld by the US Supreme Court. That has yet to stop the squealing.

[krazen1211]

What would be the GOP's opinion if in 2007 the Democrats shut the government down until the Bush tax cuts were repealed?

Better yet, what if the Republicans weren't demanding the end of Obamacare but Medicare or Social Security?

The great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 had a built in expiration date.

If Barry agrees to put a built in expiration date on Obamacare of 2019 that would certainly be a valid comparison.

The reason that the Bush tax cuts had a built in expiration date was because they need to have them in order to hold down the heavily increased deficits the government occurred. By contrast the great PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT was scored by the CBO as reducing the Federal deficit and extending the period before the Medicare trust fund goes empty.  Not only that, but with the Supreme Court ruling that States did not have to go along with the Medicaid expansion, and many GOP led States choosing to opt out that, reduced the cost to the government even more, at the expense of creating a donut hole that means some of the working poor most in need of assistance won't get as much of it.  While they'll be getting subsides because the law assumed they'd be under Medicaid,  they do at least benefit from the guaranteed issue and the generally lower individual insurance premiums.

So why do you want to increase the deficit by repealing Obamacare krazen?

Of course, CBO scores beyond a decade are of notorious unreliability, which is why Democrats' legislation like the disastrous Social Security Act of 1965 and the disastrous Food Stamp Act of 1964 continues to leech from the treasury and accumulate perpetual billions of dollars of deficits. Despite accumulating such deficits they were not subject to a 9 year expiration. A 9 year expiration would solve much of the US deficit problem.

Of course, merely subjecting Obamacare to a 9 year expiration is not demanding repeal. It is merely offering the same courtesy that the Congress of 2001 and President George W. Bush offered Barry. The democratically elected Congress of 2010 then had a choice to evaluate the great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 on the merits, and it did. The Congress of 2019 merely deserves the same courtesy.

Social Security, thankfully, has a self-limiting clause preventing it from adding to the deficit, and portions of that clause will come into play soon. Barry and Nancy didn't even bother to place such a clause in Obamacare. Wonder why.

[krazen1211]

Ro

What would be the GOP's opinion if in 2007 the Democrats shut the government down until the Bush tax cuts were repealed?

Better yet, what if the Republicans weren't demanding the end of Obamacare but Medicare or Social Security?

The great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 had a built in expiration date.

If Barry agrees to put a built in expiration date on Obamacare of 2019 that would certainly be a valid comparison.

The reason that the Bush tax cuts had a built in expiration date was because they need to have them in order to hold down the heavily increased deficits the government occurred. By contrast the great PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT was scored by the CBO as reducing the Federal deficit and extending the period before the Medicare trust fund goes empty.  Not only that, but with the Supreme Court ruling that States did not have to go along with the Medicaid expansion, and many GOP led States choosing to opt out that, reduced the cost to the government even more, at the expense of creating a donut hole that means some of the working poor most in need of assistance won't get as much of it.  While they'll be getting subsides because the law assumed they'd be under Medicaid,  they do at least benefit from the guaranteed issue and the generally lower individual insurance premiums.

So why do you want to increase the deficit by repealing Obamacare krazen?

Of course, CBO scores beyond a decade are of notorious unreliability, which is why Democrats' legislation like the disastrous Social Security Act of 1965 and the disastrous Food Stamp Act of 1964 continues to leech from the treasury and accumulate perpetual billions of dollars of deficits. Despite accumulating such deficits they were not subject to a 9 year expiration. A 9 year expiration would solve much of the US deficit problem.

Of course, merely subjecting Obamacare to a 9 year expiration is not demanding repeal. It is merely offering the same courtesy that the Congress of 2001 and President George W. Bush offered Barry. The democratically elected Congress of 2010 then had a choice to evaluate the great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001l on the merits, and it did. The Congress of 2019 merely deserves the same courtesy.

Social Security, thankfully, has a self-limiting clause preventing it from adding to the deficit, and portions of that clause will come into play soon. Barry and Nancy didn't even bother to place such a clause in Obamacare. Wonder why.

So people would stop needing health insurance in 9 years? Or food assistance? Or disability payments? Obaamacare has definite issues in need of improvement, but none of them would be addressed with a 9 year sunset law.

Clumsy, clumsy ducking of the ACA's measured reduction of the deficit, old chap.

Congress would decide whether it is interesting in shelling out the people's precious taxpayer dollars for such programs, just as it does for the Childrens Health Insurance Program and all other national priorities. SCHIP is wisely structured as a program with capped funds, unlike the other disastrous health care government programs that ravage the treasury.