SmarterThanNobody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You of course mean that they used the
> reconciliation process, just as the lame-brain
> Bush did to pass his disastrous Tax Cuts for the
> Rich.
>
> "They didn't have to compromise, they controlled
> both houses. That was what all of the bitching was
> about when they did it."
>
> No, the bitching was about ridiculous notions such
> as death panels, rationing, and government
> take-overs. The right-wing LOSES every time
> actual facts are on the table, so they do made-up
> nonsense instead.
>
First, learn how to quote if you're going to comment in-context so your bullshit is at least readable.
Second, there was no compromise as was stated. There was no serious attempt to compromise. The only compromise offered was do what we want or we'll do it without you. The AHCA was passed on a completely partisan basis by a Dem-controlled House and Senate.
Third, again, like the other knucklehead as typical, you talk about facts and then offer none, just the usual talking points. aka the standard libtard approach.
> God, you're dumb. Single-payer is far cheaper
> than the stupid for-profit, fee-for-service system
> we have now. This is why so many other develooped
> countries have a system based on single-payer, and
> why they have better overall health care than we
> do at a much lower price.
>
So why didn't they pass it? They had complete control of both houses and the President. Didn't need anybody else. Because, as I said, they couldn't make it work at a practical level. You see there's this thing called "reality" that people have to deal with in the real world versus the fantasy land where you libtards live.
> You're jumbling up two different events, although
> each of them was engineered by hostage-taking
> terrorists known as Republicans.
>
> Obviously, you are quite unfamiliar with the
> language. The debt-downgrade was quite
> specifically intended as a loud slap in the face
> to intransigent Tea Party Republicans for their
> head-in-the-sand obstinacy in refusing to include
> tax increases in the debt deal. These asswipes
> pledge more allegiance to Grover Norquist than to
> the flag or state of their nation. These are not
> Americans worthy of the word.
No, actually I'm not. You're just clueless about what actually happened. The debt ceiling was raised on 8/2/2012 the basis of the agreement to form the bi-partisan "super committee" to work out the details.
From the "Economist" (a good independent source, you should read it instead of MSNBC sometime) dated 8/6/2011:
http://www.economist.com/node/21525446
"THE deficit-reduction deal that finally raised America’s debt ceiling and staved off the threat of default seemed to make no one happy. “A sugar-coated Satan sandwich,” one Democratic congressman called it. Republican candidates for president lined up to denounce it.
But even less popular than the deal itself was the process that led up to it: months of partisan wrangling, broken deals and brinkmanship, with the threat of default hanging over an economy struggling to grow. “Our economy didn’t need Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis to make things worse,” Barack Obama noted as he signed the deal into law on August 2nd—the day the Treasury had warned that it would run out of cash to meet its obligations.
The deal, hammered out just days before that deadline, promises $917 billion in spending cuts over the next decade in return for a two-stage increase in the debt ceiling of $900 billion. After that, a 12-member congressional committee, equally composed of Republicans and Democrats, is to find $1.5 trillion in further deficit reductions that Congress must approve by December 23rd, in return for a similar-sized increase in the debt ceiling. If the committee fails to reach agreement or its proposal is rejected, $1.2 trillion in spending cuts will be triggered, drawn equally from domestic spending and defense."
That didn't go far enough and resulted in the S&P downgrade on 8/5/2011. I posted the summary from the S&P rating memorandum above. I will again just to rub reality in your face:
"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
medium-term debt dynamics.
More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon."
The rest of your post is the typical idiotic partisan ranting which merits no response.