Christoph Dollis gives us our daily dose of shutdown blues.

Yesterday I posted about how the GOP would be fired from Taco Bell and got this comment from Christoph Dollis:

This post is nonsense.

The members of congress were elected to exercise their best judgment, including when not to fund programs. Elections have consequences. They won – in the house.

He’s right: the post sucked.  It sucked because the metaphor was bad.  What I described was a union which, as it was pointed out, are pretty good things (usually).  My father posted an excerpt from a friend of his that captures it better:

So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine. Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.” Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine. What should we do???

Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the fucking job.

Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.

Bill is a fucking jackass.

Ding!

And oh, you lovely commenters came in and set him straight with all the grace of an expert fencer.  Here’s Arakasi:

Your comment is nonsense

The funding for ACA is not up for debate. It is funded. If the House wishes to change this, they are allowed to pass a bill. Now that bill still has to get past the Senate and the President, but that is the way our government works

As for “elections have consequences”, RobMcCune came thundering in:

You know, there have been 40 some attempts to repeal the ACA, and they just don’t have the votes.

 Elections have consequences.

Case in point, Obama winning a second term. Actions also have consequences, and shutting down the government in a childish temper-tantrum is going to have severe consequences for millions of Americans. So much for their “best judgement.”

Yes, elections do have consequences.  That’s a lesson for the party that lost the Presidency by 7 million votes, which lost the Senate by 5 million votes, and even lost the House by 1.7 million votes.  The people who were elected passed the ACA into law.  The Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional.  But now a small faction of one body of government has claimed the power to make others suffer until fruits of democracy are subverted.

Elections have consequences, and we should harbor no love for people who cheat to avoid them – which is exactly what the Republicans are doing.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • Andrew B.

    “Elections have consequences, and we should harbor no love for people
    who cheat to avoid them – which is exactly what the Republicans are
    doing.”

    That’s exactly what this is: cheating. The rules don’t allows them to “win,” so they throw out the rules.

    *Just reiterating what you said because I feel so strongly that their tactics are reprehensible and inexcusable.

  • Brian Krewson

    Glad to see my soda machine analogy is getting such great exposure. Original is over at http://www.facebook.com/mrpoto

    • baal

      It’s a good one thanks for it. Also, fuck bill, he’s an asshole.

  • baal

    “, and even lost the House by 1.7 million votes.”<—this little fact is evidence that voting districts are 1. gerrymandered and 2. done to the benefit of the republicans. It's worth a 33 seat majority and control of that chamber. In a democracy, this is a travesty.

  • baal

    Let’s also not forget that the republicans got deals so that the ACA / Obamacare could pass in the first place. By leveraging the debt limit and spending bill for additional changes, they are reneging on their deals. Said differently, the (R) are oath breakers.

  • islandbrewer

    I think he should have just paraphrased Insane Clown Posse:

    “Fucking Congress, how do they work?”

  • John Chiurato

    But you’re not telling the entire story (typical)

    After the machine was put in, everyone who voted to put in the machine were only paying a dime for their pop, while everyone who didn’t vote for it had to pay a dollar. And the same applied to any friends of those who ever stopped by to see them.

    So Bill and the others try to resolve the situation. This happens, let’s say… 42 times.

    Then and only then do Bill and the others take action.

    What should we do???

    Answer: Shut the fucking place down until there is some parity.

    Bonus: Bill and the others agree to some disparity and attempt to negotiate but the other parties refuse to participate any negotiation whatsoever.

    WHO’S THE FUCKING JACKASS NOW?

    • RobMcCune

      Still bill, for making bad analogies.

  • Terry Williams

    There’s also this talking point among the newly elected 2010 and 2012 class of Republican House members, that they never got to vote on the ACA. So, now they should be given the right to do so. Wrong! You did get to vote for/against the ACA, when you were a regular voting citizen who voted for your Congressional representatives who voted on ACA passage/failure at the time. If your representative at the time voted to pass the law, then that sucks for you. Yet, new House Republican, if you want to vote to repeal the law 5,000 times then so be it, that’s the proper way to go about it. Yet, there are 400+ other representatives, and the other party controls the Senate and the Presidency, and they are not probably agreeing with you. It’s has been the law for three plus years. Your party had the chance in 2012 to take back the presidency and/or the Senate and get rid of the ACA through the normal legislative process. Yet, the American public didn’t vote your party in. They didn’t agree with your position so they didn’t vote a majority of the people who agree with you in. That’s the way the system works.
    There’s a caveat to your position though new House Republican. You’re job requires you to vote on many more issues other than health care. Yet, since you can’t get your way on this one issue, the prevailing attitude “I can’t get my way! These other two sides of the three-pronged legislative process are controlled by the other party and that makes me angry! So, guess what I’m going to do? I’m just going to bring it all down!” That’s the completely idiotic way to go about it. It flies in the face of democracy.

    • phantomreader42

      So, since they never got to vote on the Civil Rights Act, do they want that repealed too? On second thought, I don’t think I want to hear the answer to that one…

  • AaronM

    Extremely bad soda machine analogy.

    It should read:

    “The majority of employees do not want to pay for a soda machine out of their paychecks. The management decided they would put a soda machine in place anyway and mandate that people purchase a soda from the machine and drink it every month.”

    “If you previously brought in your own soda’s you will no longer be allowed to do so.”

    “If the employees don’t buy soda’s from the machine they will be fined 1% of their salary this year and 2.5% of their salary next year.”

    “Management will confiscate part of employee’s paychecks regardless of the situation and use that money to pay for 75% of the cost of management’s sodas.”

    Yes 75%. Ref: http://nypost.com/2013/10/05/with-inconsistencies-abound-no-wonder-people-dont-trust-obamacare

  • AaronM

    The largest class action lawsuit in the history of the United States!
    The Lie: “If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.”
    Moore & Biddle Law

  • AaronM

    Another way of looking at this poor analogy:

    Except Bill is actually not only Bill but the majority of the people in the business…yes, the majority of the House of Representatives outnumbers the entire Senate. House of Representatives: 435 elected officials who were elected to represent the people of the united states based on population. Senate: 100 elected officials (2 per state) elected to represent their States. President: one elected official who is not elected to be dictator. Polls: 56-69% of the American people do not want Obamacare. …so in other words the attempted analogy is an incompletely incorrect analogy being used in an attempt to dupe people.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X