posted October 09, 2013 11:00 PM            

Fraid the stories I have heard are not remotely in sync with the Republican nightmare scenario. People sighing with relief that they are now covered and its costing less than their old plan, etcetera...but then if the Republicans hadn't tried so hard to "modify" the ACA by repealing it they might have made it better by now.

My hunch is this stalling technique will go on until the public, now polling the lowest rver approval rate for Congress (5%) boot them out, or it becomes their watch and suddenly they approve it w a few changes.

posted October 09, 2013 11:22 PM            

Really?

The Marxist Messiah's job approval rating just fell to 37% approval----53% disapproval. New Associated Press poll.

You seem to forget that passing the O'Bomber Abomination...without a single Republican vote cost demoscats control of the House and several lost Senate seats. In fact, the 2010 election was the biggest pickup of House seats for Republicans in a single election in about 50 years.

Americans do not want the O'Bomber Abomination. Republicans are voting their constitutients wishes....which is what representative government is all about.

posted October 10, 2013 03:10 PM            

quote:

---

The Marxist Messiah's job approval rating just fell to 37% approval----53% disapproval. New Associated Press poll.

---

And how are the approval numbers looking for Congressional Republicans?

You keep operating under the false assumption that this is hurting Obama more than Republicans.

quote:

---

Republicans are voting their constitutients wishes....which is what representative government is all about.

---

posted October 10, 2013 11:36 PM            

Republicans have the majority in the Peoples House...where all spending bills must originate.

posted October 11, 2013 07:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
"Republicans don't have the vote to dismiss the law"...acoustic

Republicans have the majority in the Peoples House...where all spending bills must originate.

Republicans have the perfect right to vote to defund any federal program, or to cut funding back or to increase funding. That includes O'Bomber's Abomination.

---

The Republicans need to stay strong for the will of the patriots in this country, not the low info voter

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 11, 2013 12:22 PM            

How do you know? Did you deduce that through osmosis?

Hairy Reid won't bring up the bill in the Senate to defund O'Bomber's Abomination, won't bring up the bill to delay O'Bomber's Abomination and won't even bring up the bill to to treat congress and staff like the rest of America stuck with O'Bomber's Abomination.

posted October 11, 2013 12:40 PM            

quote:

---

Fact is, you don't have a damned clue what would happen if Hairy Reid brought up any of those bills for a vote. Neither does Hairy which is the reason he hasn't.

---

posted October 11, 2013 12:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
There are very nervous demoscats up for reelection in 2014. Most of them in red states would vote to at least delay O'Bomber's Abomination.

Again, you don't have a damned clue what would happen if the House bills were brought to a floor vote in the Senate.

---

What bothers me is that if there are no picture ID's, NObama et al can steal the elections.

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 11, 2013 02:39 PM            

Funny how the bills that we owe china got paid. Funny How our bills to Japan got paid.
The deficit is smaller, smaller than anyone could have hoped [at this point]

H. Reid~

quote:

---

“Some Republicans today argue that we should not raise the debt limit… During the Bush administration, these Republicans were happy to run up America’s credit card to the tune of trillions of dollars. But now the very same Republicans are howling about the debts they created – the debts they voted for.”

---

In 1983, the President issued a warning to Congress: “The full consequences of a default by the United States — or even the serious prospect of a default by the United States — are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets.” The President went on to warn of the “risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage” of failing to avert such a default.

That President? Ronald Reagan

Four years later, Reagan again warned Congress about the impacts of a default on the economy. This is what he said: “This brinksmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar.”

And yet three decades later, an alarming number of Republicans have denied or downplayed the seriousness of a first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the United States. To these default deniers, up is down, black is white and right is wrong. So first I feel I must explain what raising the debt ceiling actually means.

A vote to avert default is simply a vote to pay the bills.

with little help from Republicans in Congress, [we have] the ratio of deficit to gross domestic product from nine percent to four percent. Now that the bill for Republicans’ own excesses has come due – the bill for wars they supported and tax cuts they created – they want to walk out on the check.

9% to 4% --Got that?

Yesterday, Fidelity, the nation’s largest mutual fund manager, announced it would sell of all of its short-term government bonds because of the threat of default. U.S. government bonds are considered the safest investment in the world. But if the United States fails to pay its bills, that safe haven will disappear!

posted October 11, 2013 03:39 PM            

The House however has refused to bring the senate bill to a vote...and enough Republicans are willing to end the shutdown and forestall the default to make it obvious that he is afraid his own House won't back his position.

posted October 12, 2013 12:09 AM            

Republicans didn't fire, furlough or lay-off a single federal employee. O'Bomber did that. Further, the federal government IS NOT SHUT DOWN. 83% of federal employees are going to work...with pay every work day.

posted October 14, 2013 08:42 AM            

A weekend New York Times article acknowledges that the dreaded "third world experience" perfectly describes the public unveiling of Obama's healthcare makeover.

While some Republicans have been concerned that the government shutdown has "covered for the bad rollout of ObamaCare," and that a "golden opportunity" was missed, as The Hill reports, the epic failure of the ObamaCare exchanges will be impossible for the Democrats to hide.

After a five-year drumroll for the president's crown jewel, the trumpets sounded and a cork came out:

The growing national outcry has deeply embarrassed the White House

And it should deeply embarrass every liberal who thought the full weight of an overgrown government could create the perfect system to cure the ills of mankind.

Yet the liberal reaction will be that with just a little more time and a little more money, and a little less noise from the uncouth rubes in the countryside, we'll finish the job.

The authors of the Times column, Robert Pear, Sharon LaFraniere, and Ian Austen, interviewed numerous officials inside and outside of government, and the comments elicited point to a deeply troubled process bounded by political pressure, financial constraints, and government hubris.

The federal government found itself setting up exchanges for the thirty-plus states that refused to do it themselves, which "vastly expanded" the federal project "in unexpected ways." The project was further delayed by the decision to hold up releasing certain key rules until after the November 2012 election.

According to the Times, the White House "was calling the shots" and let it be known that "failure was not an option," despite numerous warnings of trouble ahead.

A key decision early in the process is cited by the Times as a major factor in the system meltdown. With some 55 contractors doing various software and database pieces, the government "Medicare and Medicaid agency assumed the role of project quarterback," with the task of integrating the components, despite the fact that the expertise to do so was not there.

That decision would have disastrous consequences on the rollout, as the pieces simply do not work together as promised.

Officials fear that the "full extent" of the problems is unknown, that fixing one glitch will just create new problems, and that the flaws could "threaten the fiscal health" of the entire enterprise because the necessary millions of rate-payers may not materialize.

An insurance executive quoted by the Times says:

These are not glitches...The extent of the problems is pretty enormous. At the end of our calls, people say, 'It's awful, just awful.'

The full scale of the unfolding debacle is reflected in the finger-pointing:

Worried about their reputations, contractors are now publicly distancing themselves from the troubled parts of the federally run project.

If the system is as deeply troubled as the Times analysis suggests, and enrollment therefore cannot pull its financial weight, how long can it be before drug companies and insurers, along with medical device companies, demand to have their share of the tax burden for a failed system rolled back? And how long can the administration hold out against demands to stop forcing citizens to sign up for this unholy experiment?