You have $30-50/hr staff doing $15/hr work. Just quantify it. You have an easy case to make, although the current IT manager should have done this by now.

Document the hours spent on helpdesk work by higher paid staff. That should be enough justification on its own. But also document any delays, setbacks, or lost productivity from having you guys cover helpdesk crap.

Management will see that they are losing high-value productivity to low-value tasks. That is only acceptable your IT department is overstaffed.

Yes, we've seen your fallacious "it has to be presented on the floor to matter" argument. But we've already shown that the Republicans have done that, and when they have, the Democrats and media ridiculed them for wasting time presenting a bill that wouldn't pass the Senate.

So a. it has been on the floor, and b. you assholes complain if it is on the floor, and if it is not. So, c. Profit!

True, Ace did incorrectly say this didn't help the poor. However, that's about the only "good" (and I use the term loosely, because the help it provided came in a wrong form and in a wrong way) thing that the ACA did. By far, the ACA has done and continues to do more harm than good, and this was its design, and we knew it from the beginning. We knew millions could, and likely would, lose the insurance plans they liked. We knew many would lose their doctors. We knew prices would continue to increase, and that many would have to pay a lot more money because they were forced to buy services they didn't want and didn't need.

We also knew that we could have found other ways -- that didn't make insurance policies worse for millions of people -- to help the people who didn't have insurance, and, to some extent due to that fact, didn't have good medical care, including simply raising taxes to pay for Medicaid expansion. I'd choose that over increasing the cost and scope of health insurance, and massively increasing government control over the industry.

The final thing we've known all along that I'll mention is that Obama has been lying about this from the beginning. He knew his promise that people would get to keep their coverage was false, when he said it (I know this simply because, without talking to any experts, *I* knew it, through simple deduction; it's inconceivable that he didn't know it, as he isn't a dummy and has lots of experts to talk to, and all of them knew it).

He also continues to lie every day, saying Republicans want people to not have health care, or that anyone has gotten health care for the first time in their lives because of the ACA. Both of those lies are insane. There's not a serious way to make either of them into even plausibly true. But he keeps saying this shit anyway.

As to the latter, not a single person ever has gotten health care for the first time due to the ACA, unless you're going to make the case that because of the ACA, some couples had babies that they otherwise wouldn't have had. Otherwise you're SOL on this claim: every single person in the U.S. not only had access to health care before the ACA existed, but actually got health care, even if it was self-care. This is part of the fundamental conceit of Obama and his policies: you equate two different things (health insurance vs. health care) and convince people that without the former, the latter doesn't exist, and make the case that only government can provide the former, and hence, the latter. It's insanely stupid, but I guess it works on a lot of people.

You're lying. I made no such statement.

Pull the other one.

No source was provided, in fact. Since he didn't provide a source, and neither did you, I'll stop reading this comment now.

I am completely shocked that you refuse to present a case, just as he so refused.

Such as?

You're obviously lying. Why?

I'd ask you to quote me doing this, but I know you won't bother to try, because you know you can't, because I never did. All I said is that they opposed the ACA, when he falsely claimed otherwise. I am gratified, though, that you -- an anonymous coward who is friends with the leftists here -- see being opposed to the ACA as being saintly. That speaks well of you, at least.

I do wonder what you hope to gain by lying, though. Are you like damn_registrars, merely hoping that by telling a lot of obvious lies, he's being clever?

Cite him doing so. (I expect you won't, of course, because you can't, because he didn't.)

Line-stealer.

Then why has not everyone, or anyone, cited an example?

If by my "team" you mean "people who aren't stupid," and by "win" you mean "make your case," then sure. I made the case, very clearly, and with no rebuttals, the case that Obama is liberal and Coolidge is conservative.

If you disagree, present a case. damn_registrars refuses to ... because he knows he can't.

Exactly so, sir! To the great displeasure of the people who financed the campaigns, on both sides.

False. The Republicans wanted it to NOT pass, as did most of their constituents and funders. That's why they got even more funding in 2010, because they wanted to kill the ACA.

Please explain, without sounding crazy, whaty it is that I deny.

The funny thing is that you pretend I am the one who doesn't want to have a discussion, when it's clear to everyone that you're full of shit, that when someone -- especially me -- actually provides arguments you think you cannot rebut, you refuse to engage, and resort to bullshit, getting your jollies on parodying my arguments and pretending that you're making a statement to your little friends. From here, it's amusing to watch you flail around, but it's also sad because it appears that you think you're being clever.

The Benghazi discussion was a great example of this. You really thought you had a point at the beginning. When it was clear you didn't, you stopped addressing my points and declared victory. Here, you cannot even begin to defend your idiotic claim that the tax policies under Coolidge were not conservative, so you just bullshit. And again, you think you're being clever, and that's the sad part.

And everyone knows you're lying. And we all know you know we know you're lying. Again: it's just sad.

I remember the good old days when you just lied about the facts. Lately you've been lying about having done things you've never even attempted to do. Again: sad. You're not clever, you're not making a point, you're just making yourself look pathetic.

As usual, you're lying. You didn't provide a single source, for anything.

Tell me what you want a source for. Nothing I said is controversial or not well-known, so I see nothing to provide sources for. For example, it is well-known that Obama raised taxes on the wealthy. Everyone who follows politics knows this, even if the Democrats pretend it never happened. But if you want a source for that, if you want to admit your ignorance and lack of ability to use Google ... by all means, ask for whatever sources for specific claims you need.

As usual, you're lying. As usual, you won't back up your lies.

You're the one claiming the Affordable Care Act is conservative. No one here believes you: not conservatives, not liberals, and not moderates, because not only does it fly in the face of conventional wisdom, not only does it fly in the face of the facts of who supported it, but it doesn't make any sense when you examine it, either, unless you make up stupid claims like that liberals don't give massive handouts to corporations.

False. And it's completely expected that you didn't actually demonstrate me doing so.

And I demonstrated, far more convincingly, that your demonstration was based on missing information. And you didn't rebut my demonstration. Because you can't. Same old story.

Because you, as usual, lied.

It's what you always do. You lie, I prove you lie, and then instead of showing that you were actually correct, you attack me for pointing out the fact that you lied.

The facts are clear: You framed Coolidge's taxes as being unfair because the burden fell disproportionately on the wealthy, ignoring the fact that the rich paid far more taxes under Wilson, and that every income tax payer got a massive tax cut under Coolidge. Because if you had said that, it would not have supported your argument that Coolidge wasn't conservative, therefore you left it out. Which is lying. Just like Obama.