Government Shutdown analogy

[Daddie O]

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... over 40 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 effing 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 an effing jackass.

[WamegoRob]

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... over 40 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 effing 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 an effing jackass.

You and this Brian fellow would probably get along quite well; similar thoughts and even the same grammatical mistake: "thinks they are bad you you"



https://www.facebook.com/mrpoto/posts/10201101559435181

ps: Bill in accounting is in accounting for a reason.. he can count.  Bill knows they shouldn't buy a soda machine when they can't afford one, especially when every one of his fellow employees can walk around the corner to the store and buy a soda if they want one.  Walking does a body good.

[Daddie O]

I cut and pasted, but it isn't germane to the point made.  Bill is going to get fired come 2014 for not doing his job    Also, Bill can't count.  The budget office calculated that having a soda machine would reduce company expenditures, since the sodas are currently being ordered in at a higher price.

[Serk]

Damnit, I was trying to stay outta these threads since it usually ends up with two sides yelling at each other and no one talking to each other, but I love an analogy, so let's try this one on for size...

Your soon to be ex-wife (You've already filed for divorce, although your lawyer says it could take up to 3.5 years for the divorce to be finalized, but he'll try to get the crazy person outta your life sooner if he can through legal action) goes out and buys, in your name, a top of the line $200,000 Lexus (In your name since you're the only one that works, and all the accounts are in your name.) She even tries to spin it claiming that, since the Lexus gets slightly better gas mileage than your paid off F-150 pickup, it'll save money in the long run!

When the bill comes, you refuse to pay it. You call the bank up, explain you never signed the loan contract on this, you don't want it, you didn't ask for it, had you been asked you would have said no to it, you want no part of it, please take it away, I'm not paying.

That, you see... Is the power of the purse. That is what the House of Representatives, constitutionally was endowed with. If something bad is done and they, being the people as they are being represented by the federal politicians closest to the people, the members of the House of Representatives, have the power to close the purse and refuse to pay for it. Come haul it away, the people have spoken, and they do not want it, and refuse to pay for it.

Also, this is a closer analogy because the executive branch and the legislative branch do not have a boss/employee relationship. They are co-equal partners (With the judicial branch thrown in for a fun political ménage à trois.)

[WamegoRob]

Serk, your points go a long way toward reminding us of something important.
The left can scream, "The people have spoken!" all they want, but the House is doing a great job of exactly what it's supposed to do.. represent the people that sent them there regardless of how popular it makes them.

[musclehead]

what people spoke? the dems passed this into law with parlimentary trickery and a one party government.

it's going to blow up in their faces, the fuse is lit and we would like to put it out before it cause further pain to the american people.

[FLAVALK]

In this case, the employees never wanted the freaking soda machine but Bill brought it in anyways, in the middle of the night, and forced the employees to either use his machine....or pay a fine if they don't 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Parlimentary trickery ? Did we get transported to England ?

[musclehead]

Parlimentary trickery ? Did we get transported to England ?

oh you caught me. ok, procedural slight of hand? does that work better?

[Black Dog]

I didn't read where I'd get fined, if I don't buy my soda at work... 

Black Dog

[Patrick]

I didn't read where I'd get fined, if I don't buy my soda at work... 

Black Dog

Not to worry, you will. After-all, this needs to go thru 14 more changes with no outside input allowed. The fine will be close behind.

[Texas Jimbo]

Hrmmm...

The majority wanted the soda machine, or the ones with the power wanted it?

45% View Health Care Law Favorably, 49% Unfavorably

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

[WamegoRob]

Parlimentary trickery ? Did we get transported to England ?

Parliamentary procedure is a method of running meetings.
America uses parliamentary procedure.


 

[Willow]

I cut and pasted, but it isn't germane to the point made.  

It really is germane as it speaks to whether the original poster took the time and effort to think for himself.

It's also a real dumb ass alleged analogy.  Perhaps it would have been more applicable if Bill had refused to pay anyone unless everyone agreed to pay for the soda pops at a tripled price.  

This would be meaningful if people were discussing issues in an attempt to change other peoples minds rather than simply lash out and demostrate how little they really understand what's going on.

Maybe it's time for another (or a better) Civics lesson.  

[Daddie O]

I cut and pasted, but it isn't germane to the point made.  

It really is germane as it speaks to whether the original poster took the time and effort to think for himself.

It's also a real dumb ass alleged analogy.  Perhaps it would have been more applicable if Bill had refused to pay anyone unless everyone agreed to pay for the soda pops at a tripled price.  

This would be meaningful if people were discussing issues in an attempt to change other peoples minds rather than simply lash out and demostrate how little they really understand what's going on.

Maybe it's time for another (or a better) Civics lesson.  

The original poster typed "you you" instead of "for you".  You know what he meant to type.  I see you have volunteered to show us "how little you really understand what's going on."

I see quite a few of you conservative parrot this idea about "triple the cost" or "triple price".  It makes me think you must be all getting your information from the same "unnamed" source.  Why not take the figures from the non-partisan group actually responsible for determining the costs, the Congressional Budget Office, which states:

The Estimated Budgetary Impact Of The ACA's Coverage Provisions Has Changed Little On A Year-By-Year Basis Since March 2010
When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT's estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA's insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.

Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade.

So Willow, care to cite where you "heard" it was gonna triple?  If the cost has actually dropped $49 Billion Dollars since the original estimate, how exactly is that "tripled" in cost?  If it has been estimated to reduce our deficits over the next 10 and 20 years, how is that exactly costing us more money?

Logically speaking, I think you need to start questioning your sources for information on the matter.  Also, how would preventing American citizens from obtaining affordable health care benefit our country?

[Willow]

Logically speaking, I think you need to start questioning your sources for information on the matter.  Also, how would preventing American citizens from obtaining affordable health care benefit our country?

Daddie O, you have long since demonstated your inability to "logically speak".

If you really believe that the item in question is providing American citizens the ability to obtain affordable health care you verify my point.   

P.S.  I won't bother arguing with you and I'm pretty sure you know exactly why.   

[Daddie O]

Damnit, I was trying to stay outta these threads since it usually ends up with two sides yelling at each other and no one talking to each other, but I love an analogy, so let's try this one on for size...

Your soon to be ex-wife (You've already filed for divorce, although your lawyer says it could take up to 3.5 years for the divorce to be finalized, but he'll try to get the crazy person outta your life sooner if he can through legal action) goes out and buys, in your name, a top of the line $200,000 Lexus (In your name since you're the only one that works, and all the accounts are in your name.) She even tries to spin it claiming that, since the Lexus gets slightly better gas mileage than your paid off F-150 pickup, it'll save money in the long run!

When the bill comes, you refuse to pay it. You call the bank up, explain you never signed the loan contract on this, you don't want it, you didn't ask for it, had you been asked you would have said no to it, you want no part of it, please take it away, I'm not paying.

That, you see... Is the power of the purse. That is what the House of Representatives, constitutionally was endowed with. If something bad is done and they, being the people as they are being represented by the federal politicians closest to the people, the members of the House of Representatives, have the power to close the purse and refuse to pay for it. Come haul it away, the people have spoken, and they do not want it, and refuse to pay for it.

Also, this is a closer analogy because the executive branch and the legislative branch do not have a boss/employee relationship. They are co-equal partners (With the judicial branch thrown in for a fun political ménage à trois.)

That analogy is so far off Serk, and here is why:  No one filed for divorce, the President was just re-elected.  Of course his term will end, but it pretty much just started.  2, You did sign the loan.  Maybe you didn't really want to, and you have buyers remorse, but if you refuse to pay your bill when it comes what happens?  Your credit will be shot.  You want America's credit to be shot?  I will say this again:  The ACA is already funded!  Read it again, then one more time.  The government is shut down now, yes?  You can sign up for insurance right now.  The shut down is not affecting the ACA.

There are 3 branches of our government.  The Republicans are currently controlling 1/2 of 1/3 of the government.  Why do you think that having a majority in 1/6th of the government means that you should have 100% control of the entire government?  I'm sorry Serk, it doesn't work that way, and I know it can be frustrating for you and your fellow Republicans.  The shutdown is falling squarely in the lap of the Republican Party, who will pay dearly for their short sighted obstructionism come 2014.

[Daddie O]

Logically speaking, I think you need to start questioning your sources for information on the matter.  Also, how would preventing American citizens from obtaining affordable health care benefit our country?

Daddie O, you have long since demonstated your inability to "logically speak".

If you really believe that the item in question is providing American citizens the ability to obtain affordable health care you verify my point.  

P.S.  I won't bother arguing with you and I'm pretty sure you know exactly why.  

Yes, I do know why.  You are embarrassed that you got called out on parroting misinformation, and you have nothing to refute this with.  Prove me wrong.  Name your source on the tripling of cost.  I see you have gone to the tried and true method of attacking the character or ability of a poster instead of attacking the argument.

[musclehead]

I cut and pasted, but it isn't germane to the point made.  

It really is germane as it speaks to whether the original poster took the time and effort to think for himself.

It's also a real dumb ass alleged analogy.  Perhaps it would have been more applicable if Bill had refused to pay anyone unless everyone agreed to pay for the soda pops at a tripled price.  

This would be meaningful if people were discussing issues in an attempt to change other peoples minds rather than simply lash out and demostrate how little they really understand what's going on.

Maybe it's time for another (or a better) Civics lesson.  

The original poster typed "you you" instead of "for you".  You know what he meant to type.  I see you have volunteered to show us "how little you really understand what's going on."

I see quite a few of you conservative parrot this idea about "triple the cost" or "triple price".  It makes me think you must be all getting your information from the same "unnamed" source.  Why not take the figures from the non-partisan group actually responsible for determining the costs, the Congressional Budget Office, which states:

The Estimated Budgetary Impact Of The ACA's Coverage Provisions Has Changed Little On A Year-By-Year Basis Since March 2010
When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT's estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA's insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.

Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade.

So Willow, care to cite where you "heard" it was gonna triple?  If the cost has actually dropped $49 Billion Dollars since the original estimate, how exactly is that "tripled" in cost?  If it has been estimated to reduce our deficits over the next 10 and 20 years, how is that exactly costing us more money?

Logically speaking, I think you need to start questioning your sources for information on the matter.  Also, how would preventing American citizens from obtaining affordable health care benefit our country?

maybe it's because of the first two words in the sentence "THE ESTIMATED" budgetary impact. do we trust them blindly? nah.....

[Willow]

Yes, I do know why.  You are embarrassed that you got called out on parroting misinformation, and you have nothing to refute this with.  Prove me wrong.  Name your source on the tripling of cost.  I see you have gone to the tried and true method of attacking the character or ability of a poster instead of attacking the argument.

No, I guess you don't.

[Chrisj CMA]

Logically speaking, I think you need to start questioning your sources for information on the matter.  Also, how would preventing American citizens from obtaining affordable health care benefit our country?

Daddie O, you have long since demonstated your inability to "logically speak".

If you really believe that the item in question is providing American citizens the ability to obtain affordable health care you verify my point.  

P.S.  I won't bother arguing with you and I'm pretty sure you know exactly why.  

Yes, I do know why.  You are embarrassed that you got called out on parroting misinformation, and you have nothing to refute this with.  Prove me wrong.  Name your source on the tripling of cost.

When will people learn?  You cant argue with a liberal.......they will just keep hammering their delusion home until enough people stop arguing (that's their definition of agreeing) and then claim victory.  You cant win because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.  

The affordable care act, as its called, and then classified as a tax by the high courts, is not really about medical care at all.  It is certainly not about making sure EVERYONE gets covered.  It has been shown to only cover a bit less than 1% of the Americans without health insurance before this tragic mistake was made law.

This Law, or decree or whatever it is, is really about controlling you, your choices, your lifestyle, your money...and redistributing wealth from those that earned/are earning it to those that don't want to do anything for themselves because the government says we owe them....all in the name of improving health and healthcare.

Funny, the quality of healthcare is going down under this plan.  

[Robert]

So now we argue analogies?  Daddy you cannot comprehend the true extent of what is happening and acquire your figures from the very people who approved or at least O looked to so he could approve his initiative. These figures were already proved wrong the repercussions in business and in other places was not figured in and now some are quaking in their boots at the real cost revealing itself. Part of the reason O himself delayed the implementation of it for another year. Again doing something he really doesn't have the power to do. Just like when healthcare was approved and shoved down Congress throat not buy any democratic process but by partisan politics. This also pales in light of 67 million dollars has already gone missing from the initial funds to implement O care.

United States Constitution, Article One, Section 7:

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives"

The reason our Founding Fathers wrote that was because the House of Representatives was viewed as the House of the common people.  They knew the people would be closer to their local Representative than to their Senators.

A few days ago, the House of Representatives passed a bill that approved spending for the government to continue – but cut spending for the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare).

   ObamaCare is an expansion of the government powers over the people.
   ObamaCare will result in an additional one Trillion Dollars in debt.
   The United States is 17 Trillion Dollars in debt!
   Our debt is increasing at 1.9 Billion Dollars per day.
   Social Security is paying out more than 50 Billion dollars a year than it is taking in, Medicare is deeply in the red, and Medicaid for the poor is in financial trouble.

The House bill that was sent to the Senate may be our only chance to stop the Congress and President from bankrupting America.

So again O is playing one games till he gets his way at the peril of the US. Follow the Constitution not emotion.

[Daddie O]

Robert, not sure where you are getting your figures from.  None of you seem to quote any sources.  The CBO is the non-partisan group responsible for giving members of congress budgetary information.  That is who I am quoting.

Since you like to quote the Constitution (which I think is great), I think you are probably aware of this little tidbit in the 14th amendment:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.  Seems some on one side of the isle are questioning whether or not we should pay our debts.  Unconstitutional!  We must pay our debts.

[John Schmidt]

Bill can take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut. I'm going to continue to bring my own lunch and soft drink and if Bill doesn't like it....TS!  There are ways to handle Bill, but it has to be done after hours. Just get a bunch of good old boys together, hire a hooker, then invite Bill out for an evening of fun at the local watering hole. Be sure to take a camera. Problem solved! 

Don't tell me it won't work, experience is a great teacher....going back more than a few years. The best part at that time; when the hooker found out why, she took care of things for nothing. As for our "Bill"......he decided he needed a career change shortly thereafter. 

[Clayboy]

This is a nice little debate. As for the debt, no one wants to default on the debt, and the country does not have to default on the debt just because it does not raise the debt ceiling. There is still money coming in to pay the debt. You simply have to cut other places.
     How's this for an analogy? You have a car payment, and you want a second car. You make a deal with the dealership to buy the car. You go to your bank and your loan officer says no your debt to income ratio is to high. Do you default on the first car payment? No, you pay it and tell the dealership you cannot buy the car.

[Clayboy]

Hey John I don't know much about hookers, but that bike is awesome, who did the seat?

[Robert]

Robert, not sure where you are getting your figures from.  None of you seem to quote any sources.  The CBO is the non-partisan group responsible for giving members of congress budgetary information.  That is who I am quoting.

Since you like to quote the Constitution (which I think is great), I think you are probably aware of this little tidbit in the 14th amendment:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.  Seems some on one side of the isle are questioning whether or not we should pay our debts.  Unconstitutional!  We must pay our debts.

The 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook

Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar. Federal debt held by the public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007. If current laws generally remained in place, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing deficits would ultimately push debt back above its current high level. CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP in 2038, 25 years from now, even without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy (see the figure below). Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely.

Look at the long term effects of the decisions that are being implemented now. NO ONE will tell the truth who is in office and pushing a agenda, if you look in the first line the short term is a decline in debt but long term is a killer. In case you havent seen this its by the same people you quoted from. How did you miss this is my question, I cant understand how you quote the very same people that I quoted and we came up with 2 very different results? Must be that Cali air

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521

[John Schmidt]

Hey John I don't know much about hookers, but that bike is awesome, who did the seat?

Carman Allen, Ft. Worth, TX. Check out his website with his name and you'll see some of his work.

As for hookers, I have no first hand knowledge either, never cared for or had a need for such things.

[WamegoRob]

Robert, while I commend your thoroughness, don't believe for a second DaddyO cares what source you cite.
Remember, this whole thread started with his plagiarizing a far-fetched analogy.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Hey John I don't know much about hookers, but that bike is awesome, who did the seat?

Sure you don't 

[Patrick]

Well there you go again Robert, stating facts and making sense. 

[musclehead]

Well there you go again Robert, stating facts and making sense. 

think Daddie-o will have a responce?

[Patrick]

Well there you go again Robert, stating facts and making sense. 

think Daddie-o will have a responce?

It won't matter. Well, to me anyway.

Chris [or Jeff ?] is right. I'm surprised this thread/subject received any response.

[Tropic traveler]

Well my take on the analogy is that for a lack of due diligence {pass it before you read it} the workers that objected found out AFTER the fact that the drink machine was filled with toxic drinks. Therefore they did what any responsible folks would do & are now using every legal tool at their disposal to stop the poison from getting distributed to everyone. They were tipped off to that fact when they noticed a LOT of people on the pro-machine side were getting exemptions from having to buy sodas from that machine.
That fact was of little importance to the ones that wanted the machine as their intent all along had nothing to do with quenching thirst.

My 2 cents. 

[Dagwood]

All I got from the thread was that Bill Clinton was an accountant who hated vending machines that were filled with triple priced toxic drinks and hookers. 

[Gavin_Sons]

Dont forget the cigars

[..]

Hey John I don't know much about hookers, but that bike is awesome, who did the seat?

I've been in his workshop and WOW!

[MP]

Logically speaking, I think you need to start questioning your sources for information on the matter.  Also, how would preventing American citizens from obtaining affordable health care benefit our country?

Daddie O, you have long since demonstated your inability to "logically speak".

If you really believe that the item in question is providing American citizens the ability to obtain affordable health care you verify my point.  

P.S.  I won't bother arguing with you and I'm pretty sure you know exactly why.  

Yes, I do know why.  You are embarrassed that you got called out on parroting misinformation, and you have nothing to refute this with.  Prove me wrong.  Name your source on the tripling of cost.  I see you have gone to the tried and true method of attacking the character or ability of a poster instead of attacking the argument.

Here you go, DaddieO!  Not that a source will help, as I am sure you will disallow it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-now-estimated-cost-26-trillion-first-decade_648413.html

Weekly Standard, charts showing CBO, yes, your beloved CBO, figures on the cost of ACA.

Began at 0.9 Trillion, and has increased now to estimated 2.6 Trillion.  There is your tripling of cost, per CBO.  Yes, CBO.

Looks right at tripling to me.  Willow was correct.  You,?

[fon1961]

I don't want to be forced to buy soda or pay for anyone else's damn soda unless it's my idea...

[Daddie O]

Logically speaking, I think you need to start questioning your sources for information on the matter.  Also, how would preventing American citizens from obtaining affordable health care benefit our country?

Daddie O, you have long since demonstated your inability to "logically speak".

If you really believe that the item in question is providing American citizens the ability to obtain affordable health care you verify my point.  

P.S.  I won't bother arguing with you and I'm pretty sure you know exactly why.  

Yes, I do know why.  You are embarrassed that you got called out on parroting misinformation, and you have nothing to refute this with.  Prove me wrong.  Name your source on the tripling of cost.  I see you have gone to the tried and true method of attacking the character or ability of a poster instead of attacking the argument.

Here you go, DaddieO!  Not that a source will help, as I am sure you will disallow it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-now-estimated-cost-26-trillion-first-decade_648413.html

Weekly Standard, charts showing CBO, yes, your beloved CBO, figures on the cost of ACA.

Began at 0.9 Trillion, and has increased now to estimated 2.6 Trillion.  There is your tripling of cost, per CBO.  Yes, CBO.

Looks right at tripling to me.  Willow was correct.  You,?

Really, the Weekly Standard.  The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine owned by Rupert Murdoch.    Fake chart that claims to be based on CBO estimates "combined with the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee".  Instantly discredited.  Next?

I use direct quotes and links from the non-partisan CBO website, and you use quotes from a neoconservative opinion site owned by the one and only Rupert Murdoch?  lmao

You want to create a law?  Repeal a law?  Amend a law?  Here is what you do.  Win an election