I was going to add the price of bread being risen (HA PUN!) since I was on minimum wage from about a $1 a loaf to over $3 today when I was talking about minimum wage being increased here, but left it out for I didn't have solid facts regarding it.
Now I know why it has risen A $25 dollar gift card will be nice to have. even if I don't like the immunity stance the company received.
That's the greatest thing since... since... I just can't think of anything!
That's a crumby thing for those guys to do, but a toast to them for going against the grain and giving back their customers some dough, as they probably knead it in these tough times.
I was going to add the price of bread being risen (HA PUN!) since I was on minimum wage from about a $1 a loaf to over $3 today when I was talking about minimum wage being increased here, but left it out for I didn't have solid facts regarding it.
Now I know why it has risen A $25 dollar gift card will be nice to have. even if I don't like the immunity stance the company received.
That's the greatest thing since... since... I just can't think of anything!
That's a crumby thing for those guys to do, but a toast to them for going against the grain and giving back their customers some dough, as they probably knead it in these tough times.
When discussing legislation in Congress, congress.gov is your friend.
Anyway, if the bill will pass the Senate then funding for CHIP gets extended for 5 years. Granted, the program should never have been allowed to lapse in the first place but politics is a dirty business.
@jjstraka34 is correct, though--the difference between Republicans now as compared to Democrats in 2009 is that the Republicans are willing to ram their bills through Congress by out-voting the Party Out of Power. The Democrats *could* have set up the ACA however they wanted via a simple majority yet chose not to for reasons which defy logic to this day.
The reliance on Federal Funding and the emergency of no funds is the fault of the States, there is literally no excuse why the States, having more then 10 years, couldn't figure out how to create a self-sustaining program while living off federal funding.
This is a textbook case why States should rely less on Federal funding, not demand more of it. Something that flies over people.
And no, the democrats couldn't have set up the ACA however they wanted, the democrats experience the same problems as the Republicans.
It is not the case that when you control both house and senate you can pass anything you want, once 2-party factions are out of the picture, you get Special Interest and State faction problems.
That being said @Mathsorcerer, i commend you in actually doing some research and evidently finding thing's aren't quite what they seem to be, rarely done unfortunately.
When discussing legislation in Congress, congress.gov is your friend.
Anyway, if the bill will pass the Senate then funding for CHIP gets extended for 5 years. Granted, the program should never have been allowed to lapse in the first place but politics is a dirty business.
@jjstraka34 is correct, though--the difference between Republicans now as compared to Democrats in 2009 is that the Republicans are willing to ram their bills through Congress by out-voting the Party Out of Power. The Democrats *could* have set up the ACA however they wanted via a simple majority yet chose not to for reasons which defy logic to this day.
But the KIDS Act does not specify where funding for CHIP would come from.
Last week, the House voted 242-174 to reauthorize CHIP under the Championing Healthy Kids Act. Democrats opposed the bill because it would cut more than $10 billion from public health and prevention programs funded by the Affordable Care Act and because it would raise Medicare fees for higher-income recipients.
Put out a bill that decimates the Affordable Care Act and implements cuts to Medicare, call it a "CHIP" vote, and don't specify where the money is coming from in the first place. Instead of, you know, just voting on the damn thing on it's own. Which would have happened under ANY Democratic Congress. Republicans can pass their own bills that want to cut public health funding in a stealth manner. Again, THEY are in charge, and Democratic votes mean jack-shit.
The reliance on Federal Funding and the emergency of no funds is the fault of the States, there is literally no excuse why the States, having more then 10 years, couldn't figure out how to create a self-sustaining program while living off federal funding.
This is a textbook case why States should rely less on Federal funding, not demand more of it. Something that flies over people.
And no, the democrats couldn't have set up the ACA however they wanted, the democrats experience the same problems as the Republicans.
It is not the case that when you control both house and senate you can pass anything you want, once 2-party factions are out of the picture, you get Special Interest and State faction problems.
That being said @Mathsorcerer, i commend you in actually doing some research and evidently finding thing's aren't quite what they seem to be, rarely done unfortunately.
States would have to raise their taxes to pay for the goodies though. It's far easier for them to suck on the tit of the feds. Doesn't cost them any votes that way...
Put out a bill that decimates the Affordable Care Act and implements cuts to Medicare, call it a "CHIP" vote, and don't specify where the money is coming from in the first place. Instead of, you know, just voting on the damn thing on it's own. Which would have happened under ANY Democratic Congress. Republicans can pass their own bills that want to cut public health funding in a stealth manner. Again, THEY are in charge, and Democratic votes mean jack-shit.
Like I said, Democrats had a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" choice to make...so they had to choose.
What the--?? No sooner did the tax reform bill move from the House to the Senate when it got unexpectedly bounced back to the House, forcing them to have to vote on it again.
Apparently that is not the case before the Hassert rule. Because they called it the Hassert Rule after he started to do that.
No, hastert coined it as one of the things he did as a Speaker, both parties have always done this as a matter of course time without end, which is purely logical because both party speakers would always present bills that they know have a majority support of their party and devalue those that don't, because the consequence is you bring up a bill that your own party would vote against.
Presenting such 'tactic' as purely one side is amusing, but thats partisan propaganda for you.
The term is like Godwins law, it is not an actual law or rule.
I'm sure that was the justification for the Hassert rule. You say the other side is doing it so you do it worse. It's like the Bush Torture program and guantanamo bay, "those guys are bad (even though some were not) so it is OK to torture them!" it's Trumps standard reaction to the slightest criticism he goes ten times dirty.
You know what they say though two wrongs do not make a right.
Like I said, Democrats had a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" choice to make...so they had to choose.
What the--?? No sooner did the tax reform bill move from the House to the Senate when it got unexpectedly bounced back to the House, forcing them to have to vote on it again.
Because they have no clue what they are even doing. They can't get the math right because they keep adding pigs at the trough provisions at the last minute.
Put out a bill that decimates the Affordable Care Act and implements cuts to Medicare, call it a "CHIP" vote, and don't specify where the money is coming from in the first place. Instead of, you know, just voting on the damn thing on it's own. Which would have happened under ANY Democratic Congress. Republicans can pass their own bills that want to cut public health funding in a stealth manner. Again, THEY are in charge, and Democratic votes mean jack-shit.
Sigh, this is a bit silly.
The CHIP provisions are not by itself, bills are to provide funding on multiple things, a Republican/Democrat bill is by and large going to contain mostly what they want and you negotiate to have some things you want.
The 'vote' is for the bill entire, not voting on particular parts though they may be swayed by a particular part, unless you only accept people voting if the entirety agrees with their politics, both sides need to vote for minor provisions that help their causes regardless if the bill generally favors another 'side'.
Republicans after Eisenhower were famous for doing this, actually making concessions, because they actually believed they would be a minority party forever.
Btw @vanatos I consider @Mathsorcerer a closet conservative. Don't ever tell him/her I told you that though...
Hah, though honestly i consider these labels tainted beyond recognition, fundamentally i consider these 'groups' to either be out-dated bygone era's or hopelesssly hyjacked.
Even the 'libertarian' community is split on how to handle immigration, which is baffling but they haven't seemed to understand that liberty has a scope and doesn't apply to to every situation, they failed to consider the reality, which is the economics.
Put out a bill that decimates the Affordable Care Act and implements cuts to Medicare, call it a "CHIP" vote, and don't specify where the money is coming from in the first place. Instead of, you know, just voting on the damn thing on it's own. Which would have happened under ANY Democratic Congress. Republicans can pass their own bills that want to cut public health funding in a stealth manner. Again, THEY are in charge, and Democratic votes mean jack-shit.
Sigh, this is a bit silly.
The CHIP provisions are not by itself, bills are to provide funding on multiple things, a Republican/Democrat bill is by and large going to contain mostly what they want and you negotiate to have some things you want.
The 'vote' is for the bill entire, not voting on particular parts though they may be swayed by a particular part, unless you only accept people voting if the entirety agrees with their politics, both sides need to vote for minor provisions that help their causes regardless if the bill generally favors another 'side'.
Republicans after Eisenhower were famous for doing this, actually making concessions, because they actually believed they would be a minority party forever.
No one is going to buy the argument that Republicans give a shit about anyone's healthcare, because they spent the bulk of the year trying to take it away from as many MILLIONS of people as possible. In fact, they tried no less than 4 times. In the end, they had to settle for an estimated 13 million losing it when they tacked on eliminating the individual mandate in the tax bill, which is going to drive premiums up nearly immediately, which, again is ALL on Republicans, because no Democrats are voting for this garbage. They might not care now, they're going to hear about it next November, in spades.
@Balrog99 How *dare* you, you cowardly cur! Sir, you have besmirched my honor.
What's wrong with being a conservative... or since you don't like labels, having views that align with conservative thinking?
You have to be a conservative in the comfort of your own home these days if you want to hang out with the cool crowd at their dinner parties. I'll give you another hint, pretend to be a vegetarian if you really want to be treated like a celebrity!
I'll give you another hint, pretend to be a vegetarian if you really want to be treated like a celebrity!
Oh don't get me started, i was trying to explain to a soon-to-be-vegetarian that she needs to take supplements or make sure she has a specialized diet to take into account deficiencies that easily occur if you don't eat red meat.
Then some vegetarian got really angry and talked about Vegetarianism is great, everything is so touchy these days.
I'll give you another hint, pretend to be a vegetarian if you really want to be treated like a celebrity!
Oh don't get me started, i was trying to explain to a soon-to-be-vegetarian that she needs to take supplements or make sure she has a specialized diet to take into account deficiencies that easily occur if you don't eat red meat.
Then some vegetarian got really angry and talked about Vegetarianism is great, everything is so touchy these days.
I know I'm going to get rebuked for saying this but...
What? I'm shocked it was a female! There are two types of vegetarians: females and males that want to get laid.
I never understood why people rip on vegans. It seems like nothing but typical "hippie-bashing" to me. Like I should care if someone else thinks eating meat is unhealthy or immoral. The only problem I have with people in regards to food is if someone orders a grilled cheese at a restaurant, which is beyond preposterous. Beyond that, who gives a shit?? If they want to drink soy milk and have a ton of kale in their diet, what impact does that have on my life??
I know I'm going to get rebuked for saying this but...
What? I'm shocked it was a female! There are two types of vegetarians: females and males that want to get laid.
Hah, both were female.
In my experience, Vegetarians often get splotchy skin/feel tired, byproduct of not carefully regulating your iron intake due to difficulty in getting it.
I knew this one vegetarian that couldn't eat meat due to some extreme phobia to its texture? never heard of this condition but there it is.
There are two types of vegetarians: females and males that want to get laid.
I mean... doesn't that also describe most omnivorous males (and people)?
It also assumes that females are easily manipulated into sex by inane posturing in regards to eating vegetables, which seems preposterous to me on it's face. There are ways to get women in bed, talking about your diet isn't typically one of them.
I never understood why people rip on vegans. It seems like nothing but typical "hippie-bashing" to me. Like I should care if someone else thinks eating meat is unhealthy or immoral. The only problem I have with people in regards to food is if someone orders a grilled cheese at a restaurant, which is beyond preposterous. Beyond that, who gives a shit?? If they want to drink soy milk and have a ton of kale in their diet, what impact does that have on my life??
I just find it humorous myself. To me it's a religion more than anything else.
Since I have your ear @jjstraka34, my dad only recently discovered his love of guns. It surprisingy came some years after he moved to Tennessee (go figure). He's pretty much all talk though and if you actually met him you'd forgive him. I think he has at least a 17 charisma!
I never understood why people rip on vegans. It seems like nothing but typical "hippie-bashing" to me. Like I should care if someone else thinks eating meat is unhealthy or immoral. The only problem I have with people in regards to food is if someone orders a grilled cheese at a restaurant, which is beyond preposterous. Beyond that, who gives a shit?? If they want to drink soy milk and have a ton of kale in their diet, what impact does that have on my life??
I just find it humorous myself. To me it's a religion more than anything else.
Since I have your ear @jjstraka34, my dad only recently discovered his love of guns. It surprisingy came some years after he moved to Tennessee (go figure). He's pretty much all talk though and if you actually met him you'd forgive him. I think he has at least a 17 charisma!
Charisma is a useless stat in Baldur's Gate........just stating facts. I had to amend because it is useful in Planescape and IWD2.
Comments
That's a crumby thing for those guys to do, but a toast to them for going against the grain and giving back their customers some dough, as they probably knead it in these tough times.
When discussing legislation in Congress, congress.gov is your friend.
Anyway, if the bill will pass the Senate then funding for CHIP gets extended for 5 years. Granted, the program should never have been allowed to lapse in the first place but politics is a dirty business.
@jjstraka34 is correct, though--the difference between Republicans now as compared to Democrats in 2009 is that the Republicans are willing to ram their bills through Congress by out-voting the Party Out of Power. The Democrats *could* have set up the ACA however they wanted via a simple majority yet chose not to for reasons which defy logic to this day.
This is a textbook case why States should rely less on Federal funding, not demand more of it.
Something that flies over people.
And no, the democrats couldn't have set up the ACA however they wanted, the democrats experience the same problems as the Republicans.
It is not the case that when you control both house and senate you can pass anything you want, once 2-party factions are out of the picture, you get Special Interest and State faction problems.
That being said @Mathsorcerer, i commend you in actually doing some research and evidently finding thing's aren't quite what they seem to be, rarely done unfortunately.
Last week, the House voted 242-174 to reauthorize CHIP under the Championing Healthy Kids Act. Democrats opposed the bill because it would cut more than $10 billion from public health and prevention programs funded by the Affordable Care Act and because it would raise Medicare fees for higher-income recipients.
Put out a bill that decimates the Affordable Care Act and implements cuts to Medicare, call it a "CHIP" vote, and don't specify where the money is coming from in the first place. Instead of, you know, just voting on the damn thing on it's own. Which would have happened under ANY Democratic Congress. Republicans can pass their own bills that want to cut public health funding in a stealth manner. Again, THEY are in charge, and Democratic votes mean jack-shit.
Like I said, Democrats had a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" choice to make...so they had to choose.
What the--?? No sooner did the tax reform bill move from the House to the Senate when it got unexpectedly bounced back to the House, forcing them to have to vote on it again.
You know what they say though two wrongs do not make a right.
The CHIP provisions are not by itself, bills are to provide funding on multiple things, a Republican/Democrat bill is by and large going to contain mostly what they want and you negotiate to have some things you want.
The 'vote' is for the bill entire, not voting on particular parts though they may be swayed by a particular part, unless you only accept people voting if the entirety agrees with their politics, both sides need to vote for minor provisions that help their causes regardless if the bill generally favors another 'side'.
Republicans after Eisenhower were famous for doing this, actually making concessions, because they actually believed they would be a minority party forever.
Even the 'libertarian' community is split on how to handle immigration, which is baffling but they haven't seemed to understand that liberty has a scope and doesn't apply to to every situation, they failed to consider the reality, which is the economics.
Then some vegetarian got really angry and talked about Vegetarianism is great, everything is so touchy these days.
What? I'm shocked it was a female! There are two types of vegetarians: females and males that want to get laid.
In my experience, Vegetarians often get splotchy skin/feel tired, byproduct of not carefully regulating your iron intake due to difficulty in getting it.
I knew this one vegetarian that couldn't eat meat due to some extreme phobia to its texture? never heard of this condition but there it is.
Since I have your ear @jjstraka34, my dad only recently discovered his love of guns. It surprisingy came some years after he moved to Tennessee (go figure). He's pretty much all talk though and if you actually met him you'd forgive him. I think he has at least a 17 charisma!