So you are saying there should be compromise? No No... majority rules!
Re-read what I wrote. The Senate passed something that would pass both chambers by majority. Your little theory isn't even that. It doesn't make a bloody lick of sense. You can't defund obamacare by funding everything else and not funding that. I don't care what Cruz says. You simply 100% cannot. The ACA is funded with mandatory funds, much like SS and Medicare. You actually have to pass a new bill that would take away its funding. TYPING IN ALL CAPS ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK SILLY.
This is why many people like Representative King and even fucking Grover Norquist are criticizing Cruz and his allies in the Congress over their lack of a coherent strategy post-shutdown. And they 100% could fund all politically popular items, and hold less popular items hostage by attaching a gutting of Obamacare to the segmented portions. This gives them exactly what they want without them conceding a damn thing. So long as WW2 vets get to go to a monument, who cares about NASA funding?? Furthermore, there is no clear priority that any piece of the budget has over the other outside of what has been deemed essential services. Then again this confusion is kind of the point in hostage taking. That you don't seem to understand this makes you look silly...
Again, you seem to have the majority rules over the minority form of government in your head, and it still has nothing to do with passing smaller appropriation bills to limit the damage caused by the shutdown which, of course, is the point of this conversation.
By passing piecemeal appropriations, you are legitimating this kind of tactic. It sets a precedent that allows for small groups of ideologues to hold up the government over their quibbles. It's also not terribly productive to watch a bunch of incoherent strategists like the one's in the House play football with appropriations.
Ok I'm done here. I've explained this to you 4 times.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 3/10/13 06:44 (UTC)Re-read what I wrote. The Senate passed something that would pass both chambers by majority.
Your little theory isn't even that. It doesn't make a bloody lick of sense. You can't defund obamacare by funding everything else and not funding that. I don't care what Cruz says. You simply 100% cannot. The ACA is funded with mandatory funds, much like SS and Medicare. You actually have to pass a new bill that would take away its funding. TYPING IN ALL CAPS ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK SILLY.
This is why many people like Representative King and even fucking Grover Norquist are criticizing Cruz and his allies in the Congress over their lack of a coherent strategy post-shutdown. And they 100% could fund all politically popular items, and hold less popular items hostage by attaching a gutting of Obamacare to the segmented portions. This gives them exactly what they want without them conceding a damn thing. So long as WW2 vets get to go to a monument, who cares about NASA funding?? Furthermore, there is no clear priority that any piece of the budget has over the other outside of what has been deemed essential services. Then again this confusion is kind of the point in hostage taking. That you don't seem to understand this makes you look silly...
Again, you seem to have the majority rules over the minority form of government in your head, and it still has nothing to do with passing smaller appropriation bills to limit the damage caused by the shutdown which, of course, is the point of this conversation.
By passing piecemeal appropriations, you are legitimating this kind of tactic. It sets a precedent that allows for small groups of ideologues to hold up the government over their quibbles. It's also not terribly productive to watch a bunch of incoherent strategists like the one's in the House play football with appropriations.
Ok I'm done here. I've explained this to you 4 times.