Anyone else enjoy the Repubs squirming on Obamacare replacement?

[Jhhnn]

Meanwhile, Repubs will do whatever they can to induce failure-

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/pay...tration-s-decision-to-pull-aca-enrollment-ads

 

[agent00f]

You're a simpleton. Why do you keep displaying it in such a public manner? That's rhetorical because I already know that you think you're the smartest of the smart. How could you not when you've been told so your whole life?

This is Dem playbook basics on display. Every fucking time they get presented with something that could wrench control from their hands we hear that people are going to die. You are an imbecile to keep falling for this. The Democratic Party counts on you and they have very successfully taken control of the institutions in the U.S. to keep churning out mindless people like yourself. What a success story that has turned out to be eh? Idiots pulling levers in voting booths.

Enjoy your free shit. While it lasts.

Nobody is surprised that the low iq/edu conservative sorts believe they're the smart ones. If anything it'd be a shock if any of them learned anything about history like their place on the wrong side of the enlightenment and everything else thereafter. Or even how to work a dictionary to find the basic definition of conservatism as mindlessly following tradition.

 

[agent00f]

The answer is still NO. There were some similarities but there were many fundamental differences. And there was never anything anywhere close to majority Republican support for this plan in 1993.

That is not a concession of anything. You were and are wrong, but refuse to admit it. Taking some ideas from a plan from a conservative think tank is not seeking Republican Guidance by any stretch of the imagination.

Keep twisting. Maybe one day you will squirt out a fact. Just not today.

There are only two main paths to more universal coverage. One is limiting costs via gubmint fiat, whether single payer or similar, which is done by every other modern society and the previous D plan. And the other is expanding insurance, which was the more "free market" conservative alternative. The centrist D's ended up doing the latter to appease R's, as centrists are wont to do. Of course the clear lesson here is that appeasement doesn't work on complete degenerates, as evident in HC and or anything else as shown on this forum.

 

[First]

There will be consensus on many other issues...

Tax reform

Like the GOP consensus on healthcare?

After previously holding, ahem, a bit of a rosy outlook on the GOP's chances at healthcare reform, maybe this time you won't make the same mistake on tax reform given the boatload of available evidence showing their complete lack of consensus, ability to govern and of course ideas themselves, which are fundamentally unworkable (e.g. how does one be a fiscally conservative budget neutral hawk while advocating massive tax cuts with no pay-for again?).

 

[fskimospy]

Like the GOP consensus on healthcare?

After previously holding, ahem, a bit of a rosy outlook on the GOP's chances at healthcare reform, maybe this time you won't make the same mistake on tax reform given the boatload of available evidence showing their complete lack of consensus, ability to govern and of course ideas themselves, which are fundamentally unworkable (e.g. how does one be a fiscally conservative budget neutral hawk while advocating massive tax cuts with no pay-for again?).

There will be consensus on tax cuts for the rich, that much I am confident about. Actual tax reform? I doubt it.

As for Republicans suddenly no longer caring about debt once they are in charge what else is new? You will see it on here as well where the people who claimed for years that our national debt is going to destroy the country will suddenly support massive increases in debt so long as they are associated with tax cuts.

This is because Republicans never cared about the debt, it's just a convenient way to oppose social programs. Their concern about debt will return as soon as Democrats are back in charge.

 

[brycejones]

I can't wait to see what suppply side bs they come up with this time.

My money is what ever "tax relief" they come up with will ultimately be split up with 80% going to top 2% of tax payers.

 

[Jhhnn]

I can't wait to see what suppply side bs they come up with this time.

My money is what ever "tax relief" they come up with will ultimately be split up with 80% going to top 2% of tax payers.

Following the usual Repub pattern 80% of that will go to the top .2% & so forth. To create jerbs, obviously.

 

[First]

There will be consensus on tax cuts for the rich, that much I am confident about. Actual tax reform? I doubt it.

As for Republicans suddenly no longer caring about debt once they are in charge what else is new? You will see it on here as well where the people who claimed for years that our national debt is going to destroy the country will suddenly support massive increases in debt so long as they are associated with tax cuts.

This is because Republicans never cared about the debt, it's just a convenient way to oppose social programs. Their concern about debt will return as soon as Democrats are back in charge.

Yes on all counts, sadly.

And I'm curious, since you seem to know a lot about federal budgeting/appropriations, can Repubs pass a tax cut reconciliation bill in the Senate with a bare majority if the end result isn't budget neutral? AFAIK that's not allowed, even if they add a sunset correct?

 

[Jaskalas]

Anyone who wants to govern the country is going to drop the 60 vote requirement in the Senate.
It remains an obstacle only so long as the Majority Leader wants it there.

 

[theeedude]

Anyone who wants to govern the country is going to drop the 60 vote requirement in the Senate.
It remains an obstacle only so long as the Majority Leader wants it there.

They couldn't get it out of the House, but I agree on ditching the 60 votes. ACA would be a much better law without having to get Joe Lieberman's vote.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes on all counts, sadly.

And I'm curious, since you seem to know a lot about federal budgeting/appropriations, can Repubs pass a tax cut reconciliation bill in the Senate with a bare majority if the end result isn't budget neutral? AFAIK that's not allowed, even if they add a sunset correct?

Yes, they can and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they will do. The reconciliation process requires that it can't increase the deficit beyond ten years, which is why the Bush tax cuts came up for expiration in 2012-13. (they were passed under reconciliation)

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, they can and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they will do. The reconciliation process requires that it can't increase the deficit beyond ten years, which is why the Bush tax cuts came up for expiration in 2012-13. (they were passed under reconciliation)

They can even change the rules of the reconciliation process with Presidential approval.

 

[fskimospy]

They can even change the rules of the reconciliation process with Presidential approval.

I don't think they would require presidential approval if they didn't want it, although this is a bit beyond my level of understanding. Basically though, reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure and no federal law can govern how Congress conducts its business. I'm pretty sure if they wanted to they could remove reconciliation or change it in any way they wanted all on their own.

 

[hal2kilo]

They couldn't get it out of the House, but I agree on ditching the 60 votes. ACA would be a much better law without having to get Joe Lieberman's vote.

Why did you bring up that F's name. I was happy I had forgotten about him.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think they would require presidential approval if they didn't want it, although this is a bit beyond my level of understanding. Basically though, reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure and no federal law can govern how Congress conducts its business. I'm pretty sure if they wanted to they could remove reconciliation or change it in any way they wanted all on their own.

You may well be right, depending on whether or not the procedure is codified into law.

With Hair Furor in the White House it doesn't matter either way.

 

[kage69]

Dump must have been squirming something awful to be so extra cowardly and ask a woman at Fox to call for Ryan's head. How exactly does that square with the macho, tough-guy image he yearns for? Some beta, low T bullshit right there.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
As for Republicans suddenly no longer caring about debt once they are in charge what else is new? You will see it on here as well where the people who claimed for years that our national debt is going to destroy the country will suddenly support massive increases in debt so long as they are associated with tax cuts.

This is because Republicans never cared about the debt, it's just a convenient way to oppose social programs. Their concern about debt will return as soon as Democrats are back in charge.

That's inaccurate. The reason the Repubs can't get together is precisely because a chunk of them are deficit hawks.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I don't think they would require presidential approval if they didn't want it, although this is a bit beyond my level of understanding. Basically though, reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure and no federal law can govern how Congress conducts its business. I'm pretty sure if they wanted to they could remove reconciliation or change it in any way they wanted all on their own.

I think you're correct in that the Constitution gives Congress authority/power to enact their own rules on how they conduct their business.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

That's inaccurate. The reason the Repubs can't get together is precisely because a chunk of them are deficit hawks.

Fern

And yet the head of the freedom caucus just came out and said tax cuts don't have to be offset. Looks like their deficit hawkery just predictably went out the window.

 

[Jhhnn]

And yet the head of the freedom caucus just came out and said tax cuts don't have to be offset. Looks like their deficit hawkery just predictably went out the window.

It's the old starve the beast strategy. Make debt maintenance so big that the govt can't afford to do anything else, particularly after they cut taxes. It's the ultimate form of rentiership, owning a govt.

 

[theeedude]

And yet the head of the freedom caucus just came out and said tax cuts don't have to be offset. Looks like their deficit hawkery just predictably went out the window.

Yeah, Republicans are deficit hawks when it comes to caring for the sick, but not when it comes to cutting taxes for the rich.

 

[zinfamous]

You spouted lies and I called you on them. Deal with it.

You keep believing that, Sparky.

 

[zinfamous]

That is not a concession of anything. You were and are wrong, but refuse to admit it. Taking some ideas from a plan from a conservative think tank is not seeking Republican Guidance by any stretch of the imagination.

Keep twisting. Maybe one day you will squirt out a fact. Just not today.

Wut? Is that an alternative association you are spouting?

Here's a fact, my man: The ACA is the republican wet dream that the republicans always wanted and only hated because blackie was behind it.

Now, if only your betters can get around to actually doing real work and fixing the real problems within. Do you guys support these chuckleheads in hopes that they will do their jobs, or just sit around in their offices and bitch about the others calling them names?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You keep believing that, Sparky.

Verbatim indeed. You're either brain dead or one of the most intellectually dishonest people on this board...and that is no mean feat!

 

[fskimospy]

Wut? Is that an alternative association you are spouting?

Here's a fact, my man: The ACA is the republican wet dream that the republicans always wanted and only hated because blackie was behind it.

Now, if only your betters can get around to actually doing real work and fixing the real problems within. Do you guys support these chuckleheads in hopes that they will do their jobs, or just sit around in their offices and bitch about the others calling them names?

It is amusing that conservatives always talk about a conservative alternative to the ACA while somehow not realizing that the ACA IS the conservative alternative.

Once they realize this they will stop shooting themselves in the foot over health care.