Wow, a fat guy with a beard actually asked why he won't sign

[oaktonhokie]

the piecemeal bill from the house.

He said it's tempting but we can't pick and choose (my words.)

Basically a "voice of reason" worthy, non answer.

We don't get to pick and choose. His words this time.

A real question and a non answer. And he ignored the follow up.

[VoiceOfReason]

the piecemeal bill from the house.

He said it's tempting but we can't pick and choose (my words.)

Basically a "voice of reason" worthy, non answer.

We don't get to pick and choose. His words this time.

A real question and a non answer. And he ignored the follow up.

Thank you, I am honored

IMHO, the true answer to the question of why not piecemeal is... "It's tempting, but the peacemeal approach allows the minority to selectively fund the parts of government they like and simply not fund the parts they do not like. In a democracy, why should a minority be granted this kind of power?"

[oaktonhokie]

So these things are so vital. So "heartbreaking" as lady snakehair said today. But we can't fund kids with cancer separately from the rest of the budget.

And wasn't it our fearless reader who previously said about another issue, why can we just agree what we agree on. That is, sign the bills that do what everyone agrees on, and then discuss the rest?

Urgency, heartbreaking, or politics?

the piecemeal bill from the house.

He said it's tempting but we can't pick and choose (my words.)

Basically a "voice of reason" worthy, non answer.

We don't get to pick and choose. His words this time.

A real question and a non answer. And he ignored the follow up.

Thank you, I am honored

IMHO, the true answer to the question of why not piecemeal is... "It's tempting, but the peacemeal approach allows the minority to selectively fund the parts of government they like and simply not fund the parts they do not like. In a democracy, why should a minority be granted this kind of power?"

[Hokie5150]

the piecemeal bill from the house.

He said it's tempting but we can't pick and choose (my words.)

Basically a "voice of reason" worthy, non answer.

We don't get to pick and choose. His words this time.

A real question and a non answer. And he ignored the follow up.

Unless he's the one picking and choosing...

[GCHokie78]

IMHO, the true answer to the question of why not piecemeal is... "It's tempting, but the peacemeal approach allows the minority to selectively fund the parts of government they like and simply not fund the parts they do not like. In a democracy, why should a minority be granted this kind of power?"

If by "minority" you mean the United States House of Representatives, then that's the way a constitutionally-limited republic is supposed to work.

[VoiceOfReason]

IMHO, the true answer to the question of why not piecemeal is... "It's tempting, but the peacemeal approach allows the minority to selectively fund the parts of government they like and simply not fund the parts they do not like. In a democracy, why should a minority be granted this kind of power?"

If by "minority" you mean the United States House of Representatives, then that's the way a constitutionally-limited republic is supposed to work.

By minority, I meant the TP faction of the Rs in the USHOR. However, even by your definition... the USHOR is 1/3 of the government needed to make laws... a minority.

[VoiceOfReason]

So these things are so vital. So "heartbreaking" as lady snakehair said today. But we can't fund kids with cancer separately from the rest of the budget.

And wasn't it our fearless reader who previously said about another issue, why can we just agree what we agree on. That is, sign the bills that do what everyone agrees on, and then discuss the rest?

Urgency, heartbreaking, or politics?

POTUS is obviously taking a political risk, while making the larger point that the Rs put everyone at risk. POTUS does not want to just help cancer kids, he wants to also help with working poor, the unemployed, the uninsured, the government workers, people who like to eat food that passes inspection, people who like clean air and water, people who value science and research, retirees, kids who need school lunches...

So, what? The Rs only care about cancer kids?

[awesome guy]

So these things are so vital. So "heartbreaking" as lady snakehair said today. But we can't fund kids with cancer separately from the rest of the budget.

And wasn't it our fearless reader who previously said about another issue, why can we just agree what we agree on. That is, sign the bills that do what everyone agrees on, and then discuss the rest?

Urgency, heartbreaking, or politics?

POTUS is obviously taking a political risk, while making the larger point that the Rs put everyone at risk. POTUS does not want to just help cancer kids, he wants to also help with working poor, the unemployed, the uninsured, the government workers, people who like to eat food that passes inspection, people who like clean air and water, people who value science and research, retirees, kids who need school lunches...

So, what? The Rs only care about cancer kids?

Obama is damaging them too. He's damaging all of us.

[GCHokie78]

POTUS is obviously taking a political risk, while making the larger point that the Rs put everyone at risk. POTUS does not want to just help cancer kids, he wants to also help with working poor, the unemployed, the uninsured, the government workers, people who like to eat food that passes inspection, people who like clean air and water, people who value science and research, retirees, kids who need school lunches...

So, what? The Rs only care about cancer kids?

Hasn't the House has offered to fund all of government except Obamacare? If so, they want to help all those folks, too.

[GCHokie78]

By minority, I meant the TP faction of the Rs in the USHOR. However, even by your definition... the USHOR is 1/3 of the government needed to make laws... a minority.

Correct. The approval of the House of Representatives is needed to make laws. So whether piecemeal or all at once, the constitution grants your "minority" the right that they're now exercising.

[oaktonhokie]

Is it my imagination, or as the health care bill becomes more and more exposed, and therefore more and more unpopular, that it is less often referred to as Obamacare and more often referred to as the Affordable Care Act? I wonder why that is.

the piecemeal bill from the house.
pk
He said it's tempting but we can't pick and choose (my words.)

Basically a "voice of reason" worthy, non answer.

We don't get to pick and choose. His words this time.

A real question and a non answer. And he ignored the follow up.

Unless he's the one picking and choosing...

[VoiceOfReason]

POTUS is obviously taking a political risk, while making the larger point that the Rs put everyone at risk. POTUS does not want to just help cancer kids, he wants to also help with working poor, the unemployed, the uninsured, the government workers, people who like to eat food that passes inspection, people who like clean air and water, people who value science and research, retirees, kids who need school lunches...

So, what? The Rs only care about cancer kids?

Hasn't the House has offered to fund all of government except Obamacare? If so, they want to help all those folks, too.

You missed the words "the uninsured" in that list, so the Rs do not want to help them in your example. The Ds however want to help all the people the Rs do, plus the uninsured.

[VoiceOfReason]

By minority, I meant the TP faction of the Rs in the USHOR. However, even by your definition... the USHOR is 1/3 of the government needed to make laws... a minority.

Correct. The approval of the House of Representatives is needed to make laws. So whether piecemeal or all at once, the constitution grants your "minority" the right that they're now exercising.

Yes, the Rs strategy, like the Ds response, is Constitutional. However, that does not make it the right thing to do.

[VoiceOfReason]

Is it my imagination, or as the health care bill becomes more and more exposed, and therefore more and more unpopular, that it is less often referred to as Obamacare and more often referred to as the Affordable Care Act? I wonder why that is.

the piecemeal bill from the house.
pk
He said it's tempting but we can't pick and choose (my words.)

Basically a "voice of reason" worthy, non answer.

We don't get to pick and choose. His words this time.

A real question and a non answer. And he ignored the follow up.

Unless he's the one picking and choosing...

I don't think there is much evidence to support changes in popularity one way or the other yet. If you notice any difference, perhaps the media has decided to call the law by it's proper name as opposed to a derisive moniker.

[VoiceOfReason]

Obama is damaging them too. He's damaging all of us.

The DOW (and my 401K accounts) have doubled since O took office. And my taxes have not gone up. In fact, he extended the Bush tax cuts for people in my bracket. And my kids can now be insured on my policy until they are 26. He can keep damaging me like this all he wants.

[awesome guy]

POTUS is obviously taking a political risk, while making the larger point that the Rs put everyone at risk. POTUS does not want to just help cancer kids, he wants to also help with working poor, the unemployed, the uninsured, the government workers, people who like to eat food that passes inspection, people who like clean air and water, people who value science and research, retirees, kids who need school lunches...

So, what? The Rs only care about cancer kids?

Hasn't the House has offered to fund all of government except Obamacare? If so, they want to help all those folks, too.

You missed the words "the uninsured" in that list, so the Rs do not want to help them in your example. The Ds however want to help all the people the Rs do, plus the uninsured.

Oh no he didn't. They're remaining uninsured under Obamacare, only with a 4k tax to boot. They're better off without Obamacare.

[cwtcr hokie]

quick question, what is the difference between paying somebodys insurance premiums (ya know, the taxpayers, the givers) and paying higher rates for insurance for folks that CHOOSE not to buy health insurance and then can't pay their medical bills (but have no issue getting new rims for the ride) And newsflash, anybody can go get insurance but yes if you are deathly ill it is not likely it will be a cheap policy. Life is a beatch

POTUS is obviously taking a political risk, while making the larger point that the Rs put everyone at risk. POTUS does not want to just help cancer kids, he wants to also help with working poor, the unemployed, the uninsured, the government workers, people who like to eat food that passes inspection, people who like clean air and water, people who value science and research, retirees, kids who need school lunches...

So, what? The Rs only care about cancer kids?

Hasn't the House has offered to fund all of government except Obamacare? If so, they want to help all those folks, too.

You missed the words "the uninsured" in that list, so the Rs do not want to help them in your example. The Ds however want to help all the people the Rs do, plus the uninsured.

[cwtcr hokie]

You do realize that as beat up as the stock market was when the great Obama took office it is likely that if we had elected a monkey to be prez your 401k would still be doing well as the market had really only one way to go coming out of a recession. Check out the job listings this week tho and the figures from this "recovery", hint... it is a joke

Obama is damaging them too. He's damaging all of us.

The DOW (and my 401K accounts) have doubled since O took office. And my taxes have not gone up. In fact, he extended the Bush tax cuts for people in my bracket. And my kids can now be insured on my policy until they are 26. He can keep damaging me like this all he wants.

[Mcl3 Hokie]

Obama is damaging them too. He's damaging all of us.

The DOW (and my 401K accounts) have doubled since O took office. And my taxes have not gone up. In fact, he extended the Bush tax cuts for people in my bracket. And my kids can now be insured on my policy until they are 26. He can keep damaging me like this all he wants.

So it's all about you. Why do I have to pay more so you don't? Everyone needs to share the pain.

[Hokie5150]

. In a democracy, why should a minority be granted this kind of power?"

Perhaps because the US is not (and was never intended to be) a direct democracy,it rather a representative Republic designed to protect the interests of the minority.

[GCHokie78]

Yes, the Rs strategy, like the Ds response, is Constitutional.

Given, then, that the House of Representatives, a "minority," is "granted this kind of power" by the constitution, do you still like your "true answer to the question of why not piecemeal?"