Devils Advocate;1514418 wrote:I can handle the Kool Aid, You just cant take the Truth Serum.

The truth is not dependent on whether you are liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. It doesn't change.

The truth is that a shut down does not affect the "full faith and credit" while the debt ceiling may.

No matter how much the media and liberals want to make people believe it, that doesn't mean its the truth.

QuakerOats;1514383 wrote:^^ "....over legislation that has already been passed as law and funded. "



Please explain the 'funded' part. Thank you.

Still waiting for the explanation from Devil's Advocate.

Part of any bill has an appropriations component Quacker. And the ACA had one. Just because the money has to be borrowed, does not mean that it isn't funded.

Devils Advocate;1514460 wrote:Part of any bill has an appropriations component Quacker. And the ACA had one. Just because the money has to be borrowed, does not mean that it isn't funded.

Theoretically, then, everything can be funded. So why are all complaining about the shutdown?

Why tax citizens? Why not just debt-fund or inflation-fund everything?

O-Trap;1514478 wrote:Theoretically, then, everything can be funded. So why are all complaining about the shutdown?

Why tax citizens? Why not just debt-fund or inflation-fund everything?

Taxes help sustain demand for the currency. Just ask BoatShoes how the economy works.

O-Trap;1514478 wrote:Theoretically, then, everything can be funded. So why are all complaining about the shutdown?

Why tax citizens? Why not just debt-fund or inflation-fund everything?

I was just answering Quacker's question.

If you want to discuss Taxation, please start another Thread :RpS_razz:

Devils Advocate;1514510 wrote:I was just answering Quacker's question.

If you want to discuss Taxation, please start another Thread :RpS_razz:

I'd suggest it's very closely connected to this thread's topic. So ...

O-Trap;1514513 wrote:I'd suggest it's very closely connected to this thread's topic. So ...

Devils Advocate;1514534 wrote:

No, sadly it doesn't look like he has given a fuck the last 5 years.

Devils Advocate;1514534 wrote:

I can't see you. This is a message board.

The Satan in your avatar hasn't given a fuck about his weight in awhile.

Devils Advocate;1514460 wrote:Part of any bill has an appropriations component Quacker. And the ACA had one. Just because the money has to be borrowed, does not mean that it isn't funded.

Have the funds for obamaKare been appropriated for 10/1/13 - 9/30/14 fiscal year?

Nope, not even out national defense

<iframe src="http://congressstillgetspaid.com/embed.html" width="480" height="640" style="border: 1px black solid"></iframe>

Devils Advocate;1514460 wrote:Part of any bill has an appropriations component Quacker. And the ACA had one. Just because the money has to be borrowed, does not mean that it isn't funded.

QuakerOats;1514595 wrote:Have the funds for obamaKare been appropriated for 10/1/13 - 9/30/14 fiscal year?

Devils Advocate;1514634 wrote:Nope, not even out national defense

Assuming your last one was indeed referring to the QO post I've cited here, this seems contradictory.

Either it has been funded, or it hasn't been funded, correct? Aristotelian First Law of Logic tells us that.

So if it has been funded, then why is what the Tea Baggers and Republicans are doing such a problem, and why don't the Executive and Legislative Democrats just give them the "win," since it doesn't make a difference?

If it has not been funded, then how does one suggest that the Tea Baggers and Republicans are engaged in a futile effort?

I don't see why the Democrats are so uptight about delaying the individual mandate when they have already delayed all the other parts.

tk421;1514774 wrote:I don't see why the Democrats are so uptight about delaying the individual mandate when they have already delayed all the other parts.

Well, not how it started out. And not sure it's at "passing a delay" yet, either.

But my theory is that it was a win-win for Dems...either the launch succeeds and they go brag, or it fails and they run on replace to single payer. The implementation/law could be a disaster, yet plenty of opportunity to debate how to fix it rather than defend why they fucked up.

The House passed a CR that would delay the individual mandate for 1 year, just like the business side. Reid of course won't take it to a vote.

tk421;1514778 wrote:The House passed a CR that would delay the individual mandate for 1 year, just like the business side. Reid of course won't take it to a vote.

The Dems are 100% politics on this....The Repubs maybe 75%

tk421;1514774 wrote:I don't see why the Democrats are so uptight about delaying the individual mandate when they have already delayed all the other parts.

The tax on people without health insurance is integral to the new regime. For it to work you need as many people in the risk pool as possible. The key 3 things are 1). Publically penalize people who don't do the personally responsible thing and insure their health if their employer doesn't provide it. 2). Reward people who do the personally responsible thing w/ subsidies and expanded medicaid for teh P00rz who don't earn enough money. 3). Guaranteed Issue to all people even if they've had cancer, diabetes, etc.

Tax on large employers who don't offer insurance isn't really integral.

Devils Advocate;1514634 wrote:Nope,

Thank you.

BoatShoes;1514832 wrote:The tax on people without health insurance is integral to the new regime. For it to work you need as many people in the risk pool as possible. The key 3 things are 1). Publically penalize people who don't do the personally responsible thing and insure their health if their employer doesn't provide it. 2). Reward people who do the personally responsible thing w/ subsidies and expanded medicaid for teh P00rz who don't earn enough money. 3). Guaranteed Issue to all people even if they've had cancer, diabetes, etc.

Tax on large employers who don't offer insurance isn't really integral.

In a nutshell, if the government steals enough money from people who do not need health care and insurance, and gives it to those who do, we will have utopia.

Thank you, Karl.

Reuters (10/8, Cowan, Felsenthal) reports that President Barack Obama said on Monday that he is willing to discuss the Affordable Care Act only after the shutdown is ended and the debt ceiling raised. He said, &#8220;As soon as that happens I am eager and ready to negotiate with Republicans on a whole range of issues: how do we create more jobs, how do we build the economy, how do we boost manufacturing. I&#8217;m happy to talk about healthcare. I&#8217;m happy to talk about energy policy, how do we deal with our long-term fiscal situation.&#8221;





Is he still smoking dope and snorting coke?

QuakerOats;1514925 wrote:In a nutshell, if the government steals enough money from people who do not need health care and insurance, and gives it to those who do, we will have utopia.

Thank you, Karl.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to QuakerOats again.

QuakerOats;1514925 wrote:In a nutshell, if the government steals enough money from people who do not need health care and insurance, and gives it to those who do, we will have utopia.

Thank you, Karl.

1. Government isn't stealing money from anybody. Insurance is not theft. Hope this helps.

2. Everybody needs and should insure their health with at least High Deductible Catastrophic Injury Insurance...available on the Obummer exchanges. Since Ronald Reagan mandated that Hospitals provide care to people with emergencies we should have at least had a tax on people who were freeloaders and irresponsibly passed their healthcare costs onto us since then. It's about time we got it right and stopped accepting freeloaders.

3. Nothing utopian...just a good idea that came out of the conservative movement and would've been enacted in 2008 by Mitt Romney had he not been such a poor candidate and you would've supported whole heartedly as a die hard Republican making the same points that I am. Hope this helps.

BoatShoes;1515004 wrote:1. Government isn't stealing money from anybody. Insurance is not theft. Hope this helps.

2. Everybody needs and should insure their health with at least High Deductible Catastrophic Injury Insurance...available on the Obummer exchanges. Since Ronald Reagan mandated that Hospitals provide care to people with emergencies we should have at least had a tax on people who were freeloaders and irresponsibly passed their healthcare costs onto us since then. It's about time we got it right and stopped accepting freeloaders.

3. Nothing utopian...just a good idea that came out of the conservative movement and would've been enacted in 2008 by Mitt Romney had he not been such a poor candidate and you would've supported whole heartedly as a die hard Republican making the same points that I am. Hope this helps.

1. Forcing people to buy something they don't want or possibly even need is theft. Also, making people who earn more money to pay for the same service for someone who doesn't make as much can be theft.

2. When I was insured and went to the ER, I got a bill in the mail. I had to pay it or default. Why is this different? Private health care, private person.

WebFire;1515020 wrote:1. Forcing people to buy something they don't want or possibly even need is theft. Also, making people who earn more money to pay for the same service for someone who doesn't make as much can be theft.

2. When I was insured and went to the ER, I got a bill in the mail. I had to pay it or default. Why is this different? Private health care, private person.

Thank you. Obviously though, you are not a person with marxist tendencies, lofty morals, and intellectual superiority; so keep it to yourself and take your medicine. Karl will take of you; he knows best.