Reply With Quote
sure, why not?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ans-much-good/If the Republicans do take the Senate, they won’t have a lot of time to savor the victory, because two years later they’re going to be the ones defending more seats (see Sean Trende’s analysis for more details). That makes it entirely possible, maybe even likely, that Republicans will have control of both houses for only two years, and after 2016 we’ll go back to the way things are now. So can they legislate during that time?
To a certain degree, the question is moot as long as Obama is president. Anything big and consequential on the Republican agenda would get vetoed. But you can accomplish a lot by thinking relatively small. The question is whether Republicans — or to be more specific, House Republicans — are capable of doing that.
I’ll point you to two articles written in the last couple of days. The first, by Dylan Scott in Talking Points Memo, discusses some of the ways Senate Republicans and the insurance industry are thinking about the possibility of a GOP Senate takeover. There’s a lot of discussion about some of the features of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that might be trimmed back. Could you cut or eliminate a tax on insurance policies? What about restoring cuts to Medicare Advantage? Might you introduce a lower-level “copper” plan to be sold on the exchanges, which would be less comprehensive than the gold, silver and bronze plans?
Now let’s turn to the House. Last night, The Post’s Robert Costa reported that House Republican leaders are coalescing around an alternative to the ACA that would do some of the things Republicans have been advocating for years: repeal the ACA, ins ute medical malpractice reform, let people buy insurance across state lines and a few other things.
See the difference? The senators accept that the ACA is law and are thinking about how they’d like to change it. The House members are coming up with another way to make a futile, symbolic shaking of their fists in the general direction of the White House. And this may offer a clue to how legislating would proceed in a Republican Congress. The House, still dominated by extremely conservative Republicans for whom any hint of compromise is considered the highest treason, could continue to pass one doomed bill after another, while the Senate tries to write bills that have at least some chance of ever becoming law.
And that would be just fine with Barack Obama. If he’s faced with both houses controlled by the opposition, there’s nothing he’d rather see than them fighting with each other and passing only unrealistic bills that he can veto without worrying about any backlash from the public.
sure, why not?
Y'all could dissolve or incarcerate the US Congress and let Trump have the power of the purse, is that on the table this time? JD Vance's buddy Mencius Moldbug seems to think so.
Blaming the imminent shutdown (who will blink first?) on the party that controls zero branches of government will be an uphill battle.
Why is it always this time of year? Late Sept into early Oct
damn you're dumb, son
when was the last time a real budget passed instead of a CR?
honest question, can't remember
https://checkyourfact.com/2023/12/08...gets-40-years/Alternatively, a 2014 Q&A piece from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation claims Congress has passed the budget on time just six times in the past 40 years with the most recent instance being in 2003
22 years ago
This will be the first time Trump has met with Schumer this year
Trump has not met with Jeffries
Trump's condition for a deal is a ban on medical care for trans people
shorter Jeffries
A sex change is a choice, not medical care, if you don't agree you're ing brainwashed.
That's it and that's all.
Most gender affirming care is a choice regardless of who is getting it. You want to outlaw all elective medicine?
outlaw no, subsidize no, especially with respect to health insurance & any govt subsidies
I guess girls with hirsutism and boys with gynecomastia are screwed in Andyworld if their parents can't afford gender-confirming medical care
So reconstructive breast surgery after a cancer-related mastectomy is not covered in your little world?
and no jobs report on Friday
www.commerce.gov/sites/defaul...Commerce has now also posted its shutdown plan. BEA would completely shut down, and Census would shut down apart from some operations related to the 2030 decennial census. So no retail sales, international trade, PCE, GDP...
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/fil...gency-plan.pdf
will generals be stranded away from their commands?
if your objective is regime consolidation over the military, then bringing together 800 irritated top officers is the worst possible idea. They wouldn’t normally conspire electronically, but stranding them together during a govt shutdown gives them time to talk & compare notes.
that's an exception, because cancer is actually life threatening, but I do think that one should be price controlled
[IMG]I guess girls with hirsutism and boys with gynecomastia are screwed in Andyworld if their parents can't afford gender-confirming medical care [/IMG]
neither hirsutism nor man boobs have threatened anyone's life, though admittedly the moobs are a risk factor for male breast cancer, but that's not relevant. Cosmetic stuff not covered. A lady can shave it or go natural and accept her body the way it is.
But the cancer is already gone at that point.
the difference is therein that, theoretically a woman would have boobs, a normal human female body part and part and parcel of being a woman, if not for the cancer, which is generally genetic and not her fault.
whereas hirsutism, which can have all kinds of causes, not just high testosterone but also stuff like PCOS, is purely cosmetic and doesn't necessarily make a woman less feminine, heterosexual, or womanly to have some body hair, in areas like the chest and abdomen which is more commonly associated with "manliness" (I personally shave those areas). Pregnant women for instance get hirsutism all the time and it's normal, caused by hormonal imbalance.
man boobs are gross but they're mainly found in fat males with high estrogen and much more often than not caused by diet and lifestyle habits and choices. Typically not something dieting, laying off the soy and phytoestrogens, working out, and a little testosterone supplement wouldn't cure.
transgenderism is 100% a choice and a very risky one at that and should be safe, legal, rare, and never subsidized or covered by insurance. And one must be 21+ tbh. I'd argue 25 but it'd get too much pushback. Also think voting should be 21+ minimum with exception for military service. As for transgender surgery. Too many teens regret it within a few years or less. Kids especially these days are way too young to be making those kind of life altering decisions so young, especially since today's youth are, at best, half the age of maturity of youth from generations ago. The average 18 year old today has the maturity of a 10 year old from the 1980s-90s, and the average 30 year old today has the maturity level of a high school senior from the breakfast club era, sadly.
Last edited by Millennial_Messiah; 09-30-2025 at 02:34 AM.
Lol "man boob cancer is a choice"
this turned out to be not correct, btw
This makes a lot of assumptions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
