The Glade 4.0

putting millions out of jobs > not funding a bill you dont like?

really?

It has nothing to do with Obamacare. In fact, if Obama just signs a bill without it, you can have funding without obamacare.

What it has to do with is dismantling the fed, completely. Putting millions off the federal dole would most certainly be a good thing. 1,000,000 unemployed people > 1,000,000 receiving taxpayer-funded salaries to do jobs that aren't needed.

**** government spending. Maybe if you completely dismantled it, you could rebuild it lean, but at this point your government cannot ever be repaired. IT has to be burned to the ground and rebuilt. All Obama has to do is stick to his guns and refuse to pass a budget without Obamacare, and you could have the best possible outcome.

Your government doesn't just need a reboot, it needs a complete reformat, a clean installation.

(Heck, if you wanted, a rebuilt fed could come with preinstalled universal health care...and still be far cheaper than what you've got now.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'm actually torn on the subject. I hope they do fund Obama Care, because it will be hilarious to see the fall out of the 1099-R Provision that Obama and the Democrats suddenly understand.

_________________

On top of that, making Obama choose his pet project over funding the other bloated entitlement programs is a wonderful tatic. Both are shite issues and pitting them against each other is awesomesauce.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

/head explodes

If Obama wanted to be a truly great President, he would play golf every day and veto every single bill that comes into his office without looking at them. The free market would absolutely flourish in this scenario. We still have state governments, I don't see why the feds have to be so big or do anything at all. It's like having two operating systems, it just clogs up the system. If the country was a computer, I would cntrl+alt+delete the federal government and get about 40% extra RAM.

AHHHHHHH Eldritch Horrors are behind this!

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

please do not say that sentence aloud... repeating his name that many times can only summon him from the depths to destroy all life.

It is like Hastur, only less cheerful.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Or Beetlejuice

_________________

The government needs a budget to function, and if Obama refuses to sign any budget they pass then the government shuts down as soon as the current appropriations run out.

If he decides having healthcare is more important than everything else, then that's on him, right? Especially, since polls seem to indicate that an overwhelming majority of the American people would like to change some aspect or another about this bill. Odds are, if he's willing, he'll be able to cut some kind of compromise. Or better yet we start voting for and funding things on their personal merits instead of as a "take it all or leave it all" style approach.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I lost you at "voting for". Since when has this changed anything?

What I'm saying is:
1. Why can't the congress pass a bill funding just the basic stuff?
2. If Obama chooses to veto such a bill on the fact that "It doesn't include funding for the 2010 healthcare law", isn't that his problem?
3. Then can't we have a separate "up or down vote" in a "Clean bill" on whether or not to fund the 2010 healthcare law this year?

Lex, I meant the congress voting (in our stead) for or against these things. As far as us voting for anything changing anything I guess we'll find out over the next 23 months. There's 80 new congress folks and to think that doesn't change how things are being run at all is lie to keep you down.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... re-reform/

Round 2 in the courts.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

This time it's the whole thing, as the judge ruled (rightly IMHO) that Congress chose not to put a customary severability clause in the law.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

They specifically stated it was critical to the intent and success of the entire bill.

Repeatedly.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I'm worried about how SCOTUS will come down on this. I'm glad it's progressing up to them in a positive manner and I'm hoping the justices are not able or willing to refute what the lower justices are saying on this.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

From what I understand, pretty much every suit brought by every party in every district but one (guess which), has been giving standing and the Health Care Reform Act found constitutionally lacking.

_________________

Heard on news radio this morning (meaning I don't have cites to back it up)...that as of now it is a 2-2 split. And go figure this: judges appointed by Democratic presidents have upheld it, and judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled against it.

I heard 14 suits were dismissed without standing, and now it's 2-2 on constitutionality decisions.

There are many, many suits before the courts on this issue beyond the ones brought by the State Attorneys General.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

All it takes is one court to find it unconstitutional, and then it is "dead in the water"*

*This does not mean it will not happen, I am just using this term (incorrectly) to insinuate that the next step will be the plethora of back and forth battles up to the USSC.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I've heard both, but does the ruling mean that this cannot be implemented until its resolved?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Well, if equal federal courts in different states produce conflicting rulings, then what happens? Obviously, the USSC will trump all, but until then?